in detection statistics , the relation between the average number of counts during a detection time @xmath0 , @xmath1 , and the fluctuations around this value , expressed by the variance @xmath2-@xmath3 , i.e. the variance to mean ratio    q^2 ~    is often used to characterise the statistics of the particle field detected .
for instance in the case of neutrons emitted from a radioactive source following a simple poisson statistics , this ratio is obviously equal to unity .
however , for a neutron chain in a multiplying medium , such as a subcritical reactor with a source or a fissile sample with an inherent neutron source due to spontaneous fission , the branching character represented by the fission process has the consequence that the individual detections will not be independent , rather positive correlations exist between them . hence the variance to mean ratio is larger than unity , and the deviation from unity carries information on the medium in which the branching process ( neutron multiplication ) took place .
this fact was used by feynman and de hoffmann in 1944 - 1956 @xcite for the derivation of a formula for a branching process where the variance to mean was above unity , @xmath4 .
the @xmath5-function became called the feynman y - function , characterising the deviation of the relative variance from unity .
both its time dependence , expressed by the prompt neutron decay constant @xmath6 , as well as its asymptotic value , carry information on the sought parameters of the system .
the original application of these studies was related to the theoretical description of statistical fluctuations of the number of neutrons in multiplying medium or in other words , to the determination of the level of subcriticality .
therefore , the above - mentioned research remained classified for several years .
the fundamental principles of the feynman - alpha theory have been extensively described in a number of publications , e.g. @xcite .
about a decade ago the interest to this subject returned again in connection to the on - line measurement of subcritical reactivity of accelerator - driven systems ( ads ) . whereas the original feynman - alpha formulas referred to a homogeneous system in an monoenergetic ( `` one - group '' ) description @xcite , dealing only with one exponent or decay constant , the further experiments , e.g. the yalina @xcite and muse @xcite , showed the appearance of more than one decay constant and , therefore , the possible need of extension of the one - group one - region ( also referred to as `` one - point '' ) feynman - alpha formulas to more energy groups and spatial regions .
several attempts were made towards the explanation of multiple exponential modes by the spatial effects @xcite . by that time
it was decided that the future ads - systems will be driven by pulsed neutron and spallation sources which lead to the extension of the theory of variance - to - mean formulas for a continuous source with poisson statistics to the cases of pulsed and spallation neutron sources with different definition of the pulse shapes and pulsing manner @xcite .
latter analysis @xcite showed the close link between the application of feynman - alpha formulas to subcriticality measurements and safeguards .    in line with the above , the suggestion of new safeguards technique for mox / spent fuel assay @xcite , the differential die - away self - interrogation ( ddsi ) technique , displayed the interest towards the energy - dependent aspects of neutron counting . in connection with this ,
the two - group feynman - alpha theory was elaborated in @xcite where delayed neutrons were neglected , and in @xcite with inclusion of delayed neutron precursors .
however , fast fission and thermal detections were neglected in both papers .
the results of further considerations of the importance of the energy - aspect in evaluation of the real systems shows that `` a measured variance - to - mean ratio in fast systems may be contaminated by the energy - higher order mode effect except when the system is near - critical @xcite '' .    in the light of recent advances in detector technologies in safeguards towards the development of
fast neutron detection systems with scintillators , the knowledge of the energy - dependent behavior of neutron counting became a very important issue to be taken into account in feynman - alpha theory .
the authors of @xcite showed that the short and long time behavior of the @xmath7-function can be used to assay the amount of @xmath8pu and the absolute amount of @xmath9pu+@xmath10pu in the reprocessed fuel .
therefore , one part of this paper is devoted to the derivation of the general case of one - point two - group feynman - alpha formulas , when fast fission and thermal detections and delayed neutrons are included . however in some cases , for example
, when the fission chambers are used as detectors , the energy importance makes way for the region - dependent aspect .
this issue has not well been studied previously , although some expressions for the one - group two - region feynman - alpha formulas can be found in @xcite . however
, even these investigations are limited to the case of delayed neutron precursors having been neglected and detections accounted for only in one region .
thus , the second part of this paper is devoted to the derivation of the general case of the two - point one - group feynman - alpha formulas , when detections and delayed neutrons are accounted for in both regions .
it has to be noted that the present paper does not carry out fully an analysis of the diagnostic value of the obtained formulas the same way as it was made in the traditional works based on a one - group treatment in a single ( infinite ) homogeneous medium . in the traditional case
the time dependence of the feynman @xmath5 function is characterised essentially with one decay constant which can clearly be related to the subcriticality of the system . in the case of using two energy groups and two spatial regions , the number of decay constants increases and each of them becomes a much more involved function of the increased number of material properties ( reaction intensities ) that the treatment of different regions and energy intervals incurs .
the sought system parameters become very involved functions of these decay constants , and no attempt is made in this paper on the investigation of how these parameters can be extracted from the measurements .
this is deferred to later work .
the objective of the present work is to give a clear and transparent derivation of the various variance - to - mean formulas as functions of the reaction and transition intensities , and to compare the solutions for the different cases .
in this paper , the two - point two - group , the two - group one - point ( with delay neutrons ) and the one - group two - point ( with delayed neutrons ) feynman - alpha formulas were derived by using the kolmogorov forward approach @xcite . in the general model used for derivations
we assume that the neutron population consists of two groups of neutrons : fast ( denoted as 1 ) and thermal ( denoted as 2 ) .
fast and thermal neutrons can undergo different reactions ( i ) listed below :    * absorption ( @xmath11 ) , * fission ( @xmath12 ) , * detection ( @xmath13 ) , * removal from the fast group to the thermal ( @xmath14 ) .
unlike in the terminology , used in the traditional one - group treatments , absorbtion here stands only for capture .
the decay constant of the delayed neutron precursors is given as @xmath15 .
in addition , both the fast and thermal neutrons can transit from one region to the others , in both directions . in all models
the source is considered as releasing n particles with probability _ @xmath16 _ at an emission event . in this paper a term _ `` two - point '' _ has the same meaning as _ `` two - region''_.      for the two - group two - point model it was assumed that two adjacent infinite and homogeneous half - space regions ( denoted as a and b ) with different independent reaction intensities for absorption of fast and thermal neutrons ( @xmath17 , @xmath18 , @xmath19 , @xmath20 ) , fission induced by fast and thermal neutrons ( @xmath21 , @xmath22 , @xmath23 , @xmath24 ) and detection of fast and thermal neutrons ( @xmath25 , @xmath26 , @xmath27 , @xmath28 ) .
the two regions are coupled by two passage intensities ( @xmath29 , @xmath30 , @xmath31 , @xmath32 ) in two different directions describes the intensity of particles ( group i ) leaving region a for region b and @xmath33 is the intensity of particles ( group i ) transferring to region a from region b. ] .
thus , each of the reactions for the different groups of neutrons can be described by transition intensities , as shown in figure [ fig:1 ] .
total intensities including both the reactions and transitions between the regions for the fast and the thermal neutrons are denoted as @xmath34 and @xmath35 , @xmath36 and @xmath37 for regions a and b , respectively :    _ a1 = _ a1a + _ a1f +
a2 = _ a2a + _ a2f + _ a2 t +
_ a2d    _ b1 = _ b1a+ _ b1f + _ b1 t + _ b1r + _
b1d    _ b2=_b2a + _ b2f + _ b2 t + _
b2d    the slowing down process , i.e. the removal of neutrons from the fast group to the thermal group is described by the removal reaction intensity @xmath38 . in the two - point two - group model
we also include two extraneous compound poisson sources of fast neutrons placed in different regions , a and/or b , with intensities @xmath39 and @xmath40 . in the following , two special cases of the above general form will be described briefly . because in the lower dimensionality of the special cases , inclusion of delayed neutrons is possible .      in the two - group one - point feynman - alpha model ( figure [ fig:25 ] ) , we assume that the medium is infinite and homogeneous .
the neutron population consists of two groups of neutrons , fast and thermal .
a compound poisson source of fast neutrons with emission intensity @xmath41 is included in the model .
thus , the total transition intensities for the fast and thermal neutrons , denoted as @xmath42 and @xmath43 , are given as :    _ 1 = _
1a + _ 1f + _ r + _
1d    _ 2 = _ 2a + _
2f + _ 2d      the assumption behind the one - group two - point model is that the two adjacent homogeneous half - space regions ( denoted as a and b ) with independent reaction intensities for detection ( @xmath44 , @xmath45 ) , absorption @xmath46 and @xmath47 , and fission @xmath48 and @xmath49 are coupled by two passage intensities @xmath50 and @xmath51 in two different directions .
the decay constants of delayed neutron precursors are given as @xmath52 and @xmath53 for regions a and b , as shown in figure [ fig:3 ] .
thus , total transition intensities for region a and region b are denoted as @xmath54 and @xmath55 :    _ a = _ aa + _ af + _ at + _ ad    _ b = _ ba + _ bf + _ bt + _ bd    in the model we include two compound poisson sources of fast neutrons in regions a and b with emission intensities @xmath56 and @xmath57 , respectively .
the sources are considered as releasing @xmath58 particles in one emission with the probability distributions of @xmath59 and @xmath60 , respectively .
for the induced fission reaction , we consider that @xmath61 neutrons and @xmath62 delayed neutron precursors are emitted with the probability distributions @xmath63 and @xmath64 for the fission reaction in region a and region b , respectively .
based on the main concept and assumptions used the two - group two - region , the two - group one - region and the two - region one - group feynman - alpha formulas are elaborated as below .      in order to derive the two - point two - group feynman - alpha theory
let us assume that the source @xmath65 is switched on in the region a / b at the time @xmath66 , while the detection process is started at the fixed time instant @xmath67 , where @xmath68 and @xmath69 .
let the random processes @xmath70 , @xmath71 , @xmath72 and @xmath73 represent the number of fast neutrons in region a , fast neutrons in region b , thermal neutrons in region a and thermal neutrons in region b at the time @xmath74 and @xmath75 , @xmath76 , @xmath77 , @xmath78 - the number of fast and thermal particle detections in the regions a and b in the time interval [ @xmath67 , @xmath79 , respectively . for convenience , we consider _
@xmath67=0_. thus , the joint probability of having @xmath80 fast neutrons in region a , @xmath81 fast neutrons in region b , @xmath82 thermal neutrons in region a , @xmath83 thermal neutrons in region b at time @xmath0 , @xmath84 fast neutrons have been detected in region a , and @xmath85 fast neutrons have been detected in region b , @xmath86 thermal neutrons have been detected in region a , and @xmath87 thermal neutrons have been detected in region b during the period of time @xmath88 can be defined as :    @xmath89 .    by summing up the probabilities of all mutually exclusive events of the particle not having or having a specific reaction within the infinitesimally small time interval d@xmath0 , one can write :    = -(_a1n_a1+_a2n_a2+_b1n_b1+_b2n_b2+s_a+s_b)p(n_a1,n_a2,n_b1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ a1a(n_a1 + 1)p(n_a1 + 1,n_a2,n_b1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ a2a(n_a2 + 1)p(n_a1,n_a2 + 1,n_b1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ b1a(n_b1 + 1)p(n_a1,n_a2,n_b1 + 1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ b2a(n_b2 + 1)p(n_a1,n_a2,n_b1,n_b2 + 1,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ a1f_k^n_a1 + 1(n_a1 + 1-k)f_a1(k)p(n_a1 + 1-k , n_a2,n_b1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ b1f_k^n_b1 + 1(n_b1 + 1-k)f_b1(k)p(n_a1,n_a2,n_b1 + 1-k , n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t )    +
_ a2f_k^n_a1(n_a2 + 1)f_a2(k)p(n_a1-k , n_a2 + 1,n_b1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ b2f_k^n_b1(n_b2 + 1)f_b2(k)p(n_a1,n_a2,n_b1-k , n_b2 + 1,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ a1t(n_a1 + 1)p(n_a1 + 1,n_a2,n_b1 - 1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ b1t(n_b1 + 1)p(n_a1 - 1,n_a2,n_b1 + 1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ a2t(n_a2 + 1)p(n_a1,n_a2 + 1,n_b1,n_b2 - 1,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ b2t(n_b2 + 1)p(n_a1,n_a2 - 1,n_b1,n_b2 + 1,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ ar(n_a1 + 1)p(n_a1 + 1,n_a2 - 1,n_b1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ br(n_b1 + 1)p(n_a1,n_a2,n_b1 + 1,n_b2 - 1,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ a1d(n_a1 + 1)p(n_a1 + 1,n_a2,n_b1,n_b2,z_a1 - 1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ b1d(n_b1 + 1)p(n_a1,n_a2,n_b1 + 1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1 - 1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + _ a2d(n_a2 + 1)p(n_a1,n_a2 + 1,n_b1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2 - 1,z_b2,t ) + _ b2d(n_b2 + 1)p(n_a1,n_a2,n_b1,n_b2 + 1,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2 - 1,t ) + s_a_n^n_a1p_a(n)p(n_a1-n , n_a2,n_b1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t ) + s_b_n^n_b1p_b(n)p(n_a1,n_a2,n_b1-n , n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t )    with initial conditions    p(n_a1,n_a2,n_b1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t = t_0t_0 ) = _ n_a1,0 _ n_a2,0 _ n_b1,0 _ n_b2,0 _ z_a1,0 _ z_a2,0 _ z_b1,0 _ z_b2,0    and    _ n_a1 _ n_a2 _ n_b1 _
n_b2 p(n_a1,n_a2,n_b1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t = t_dt_0 ) = _ z_a1,0 _ z_a2,0 _ z_b1,0 _ z_b2,0    and @xmath90 is the number distribution of neutrons in a fission of type _
i_.    this equation can be solved by using the generating function technique in the way similar to as described in @xcite . by defining the following generating function for the probability distribution @xmath91 :    g(x_a , y_a , x_b , y_b ,
m , n , o , p , t)= _ n_a1 _ n_a2 _ n_b1 _ n_b2 _ z_a1 _ z_a2 _ z_b1 _ z_b2 x_a^n_a1 y_a^n_a2 x_b^n_b1 y_b^n_b2 m^z_a1 n^z_a2 o^z_b1 p^z_b2 * p(n_a1,n_a2,n_b1,n_b2,z_a1,z_b1,z_a2,z_b2,t )    with initial condition for @xmath92    g(x_a , y_a , x_b , y_b , m , n , o , p , t = t_0t_0 ) = 1    and    g(1,1,1,1,m , n , o , p , t = t_dt_0 ) = 1    the following partial differential equation is obtained :    = [ _ a1a + _ ary_a + _ a1tx_b + _ a1 dm - _ a1x_a + q_a1(x_a ) _ a1f ] + [ _ a2a + _ a2ty_b + _ a2dn - _ a2y_a + q_a2(x_a ) _ a2f ] + [ _ b1a + _ bry_b + _ b1tx_a + _ b1do - _ b1x_b + q_b1(x_b ) _ b1f ] + [ _ b2a + _ b2ty_a + _ b2dp - _ b2y_b + q_b2(x_b ) _ b2f ] + s_a [ r_a(x_a ) - 1 ] g + s_b [ r_b(x_b ) - 1 ] g ,    where    q_i ( x ) = _ k x^k f_if(k )
n p_q(n ) x^n    for the sake of simplicity , some identities are used in the solution as below ( @xmath93 ) :    .r ( x)|_x=1= _ n n p_q(n ) = r    .r ( x)|_x=1= _ n n(n-1 ) p_q(n ) = r
thus , @xmath94 ( @xmath95 ) , @xmath96 ( @xmath97 ) , @xmath98 ( @xmath99 ) , @xmath100 ( @xmath101 ) and @xmath102 , @xmath103 , @xmath104 , @xmath105 stand for the first and second factorial moments of the number of neutrons emitted in a fission process and in a source event , respectively . the index
@xmath106 denotes fission induced by fast or thermal neutrons , respectively . in a steady subcritical medium with a steady source , when @xmath107 , the following stationary solutions for the neutron populations @xmath108 , @xmath109 , @xmath110 , @xmath111 , @xmath112 , @xmath113 , @xmath114 , @xmath115 are obtained as below :     r_a ( _ a2 t _
( -_b1+_b1f _ b1 ) + _ a2 ( _ b1 _ b2-_b1f _ b2 _ b1-_b2f _ br _
b2 ) ) )     r_b ( _ a1 ( _ a2 _ b2-_a2 t _ b2t)+_a1f ( -_a2 _ b2+_a2 t _ b2t)_a1-_a2f _ ar _ b2 _
a2 ) )     ) ) + s_b r_b ( _ ar _ b1 t _ b2+_b2
t _ br ( _ a1-_a1f_a1 ) ) )     _ ar _ b1t+_br ( _ a1 _ a2-_a1f _ a2_a1-_a2f _ ar _
a2 ) ) )                    by introducing the modified second factorial moment of the random variables a and b as follows @xmath116=@xmath117 - @xmath118,@xmath119 and then taking cross- and auto - derivatives , the following system of differential equations of modified second factorial moments ( @xmath120 , @xmath121 , @xmath122 , @xmath123 , @xmath124 , @xmath125 , @xmath126 ) for the neutron population are obtained as below :    _ x_a x_a = 2 _ b1 t
_ x_a x_b+ 2 _ a2f _
a1-_a1)_x_a x_a + s_a r_a+_a2f _ a2
|n_a2 + _ a1f _ a1|n_a1    _
x_a y_a = _ b1 t _
y_a x_b+_a2f_a2 _
y_a y_a+_b2 t
_ x_a y_b+(_a1f _
a1 -_a1-_a2 ) _
x_a y_a+_ar _
x_a x_a    _
x_a x_b = _ b1 t _ x_b x_b+_a2f_a2 _
y_a x_b+_b2f _ b2 _ x_a y_b + ( _ a1f _ a1 -_a1 ) _
x_a x_b+(_b1f _ b1-_b1 ) _ x_a x_b+_a1 t _
x_a y_b = _ b1 t _ x_b y_b+_a2f_a2 _
y_a y_b+(_a1f _
a1 -_a1-_b2 ) _
x_a y_b+_br _
x_a x_b+_a2 t _
x_a y_a    _ x_b x_b = 2_b2f _ b2_x_b y_b+2(_b1f _ b1-_b1 ) _
x_b x_b+2 _ a1 t _
x_a x_b + s_b r_b+_b2f _ b2|n_b2+_b1f _ b1  |n_b1    _ y_a x_b = _
_ x_b y_b+_b2f _ b2
_ y_a y_b+(_b1f _
b1-_b1-_a2 ) _ y_a x_b+_ar _
x_a x_b+_a1 t _
x_a y_a    _ x_b y_b = _ b2f _ b2 _ y_b y_b+(_b1f _ b1-_b1-_b2 ) _
x_b y_b+_br _ x_b x_b+_a2 t _
y_a x_b+_a1 t _
x_a y_b    _
y_a y_a = 2 _ b2 t _
y_a y_b-2 _ a2 _
y_a y_a+2 _ ar _
x_a y_a    _ y_a y_b = _
b2t_y_b y_b-_a2 _
y_a y_b-_b2 _ y_a y_b+_br _ y_a x_b+_a2 t _
y_a y_a+_ar _
x_a y_b    _ y_b y_b = -2 _ b2_y_b y_b+2 _ br _ x_b y_b+2 _ a2 t _
y_a y_b    this system can be solved in the stationary state ( when left hand sides are equal to 0 ) .
the final expression of two - point two - group feynman - alpha formulas for fast detections is given as below :    = 1+y(t)=1 + _
i=1 ^ 4 y_i ( 1 - )    the four roots , namely @xmath127 , @xmath128 , @xmath129 and @xmath130 can be obtained by solving the forth order characteristic equation in @xmath131 with known coefficients a , b , c , d , obtained from the temporal laplace transform of the time - dependent equations for @xmath132 etc .
:    ^4 + a^3+b^2+c+d = 0    where    a= _ a1+_a2+_b1+_b2-_a1f _ a1-_b1f _ b1    b= -_a1 t _ b1t+_a2 _ b2-_a2 t _ b2t-_a2 ( _ a1f _ a1-_a1)-_b2 ( _ a1f _ a1-_a1)-_a2 ( _ b1f _ b1-_b1)-_b2 ( _ b1f _ b1-_b1)+(_a1f _ a1-_a1 ) ( _ b1f _ b1-_b1)-_a2f _ ar _
-_b2f _ br _
b2    c= -_a1 t _
b1t-_a1 t _
b2-_a2 _ b2 ( _ a1f _ a1-_a1)+_a2 t
_ b2 t ( _ a1f _ a1-_a1)-_a2 _ b2 ( _ b1f _ b1-_b1)+_a2 t _
b2 t ( _ b1f _ b1-_b1)+_a2 ( _ a1f _ a1-_a1 ) ( _ b1f _ b1-_b1)+_b2 ( _ a1f _ a1-_a1 ) ( _ b1f _ b1-_b1)-_a2f _ ar
a2 + _ a2f _ ar ( _ b1f _ b1-_b1 ) _ a2-_a2 _ b2f _ br _ b2 + _ b2f _ br ( _ a1f _ a1-_a1 ) _
b2    d= -_a1 t _
a2 _ b1 t _ b2+_a1 t _ a2 t _
b2t+_a2 _ b2 ( _ a1f _ a1-_a1 ) ( _ b1f _ b1-_b1)-_a2 t
_ b2 t ( _ a1f _ a1-_a1 ) ( _ b1f _ b1-_b1)-_a1 t _ a2f _
b2 t _ br _
b2 ( _ b1f _ b1-_b1 ) _ a2 -_a2 t _ ar _ b1 t _
b2f _ b2+_a2 _ b2f _
br ( _ a1f _ a1-_a1 ) _ b2 + _ a2f _ ar _ b2f _ br _ a2
_ b2=_1 _ 2 _ 3 _ 4    if detection of fast neutrons is performed in region a , then the functions @xmath133 , @xmath134 , @xmath135 and @xmath136 should be used in the form :    -y_1 =    -y_2 =    - y_3 =    - y_4 =    where ,    k_3 = _ x_a x_a    k_2=_a2f _
x_a y_a q_a2(x_a)+_a2 _ x_a x_a-_b1f _ x_a x_a q_b1(x_b)+_b1 _ x_a x_a+_b1 t _
x_a x_b+_b2 _
x_a x_a    k_1 = _ a2f _ b1f _
x_a y_a q_a2(x_a ) q_b1(x_b)+_a2f _ b1 _ x_a
y_a q_a2(x_a)+_a2f _ b2 _ x_a y_a q_a2(x_a)+_a2f _ b2 t _
x_a y_b q_a2(x_a)-_a2 _ b1f _
x_a x_a q_b1(x_b)+_a2 _ b1 _ x_a x_a+_a2 _ b1 t
_ x_a x_b+_a2 _ b2 _
x_a x_a-_a2 t _
b2 t _ x_a x_a-_b1f _ b2
_ x_a x_a q_b1(x_b)+_b1 t
y_b q_b2(x_b)-_b2f _ br _
x_a x_a q_b2(x_b)+_b1 _ b2 _ x_a x_a+_b1 t _ b2 _
x_a x_b    k_0= _ a2f
_ b1f _ b2 _
x_a y_a q_a2(x_a ) q_b1(x_b)-_a2f _ b1f _ b2 t _ x_a
y_b q_a2(x_a ) q_b1(x_b)-_a2f _ b2f _ br _
x_a y_a q_a2(x_a ) q_b2(x_b)+_a2f _ b1 _ b2 _ x_a
y_a q_a2(x_a)+_a2f _ b1 _ b2 t _
x_a y_b q_a2(x_a)+_a2f _
b2 t _ br _
x_a x_b q_a2(x_a)-_a2 _ b1f _ b2 _ x_a x_a q_b1(x_b)+_a2 _ b1 t _ b2f _
x_a y_b q_b2(x_b)-_a2 _ b2f _ br _ x_a x_a q_b2(x_b)+_a2 _ b1 _ b2 _ x_a x_a+_a2 _ b1 t _ b2 _ x_a x_b+_a2 t _
b1f _ b2 t _
x_a q_b1(x_b)+_a2 t _
x_a y_a q_b2(x_b)-_a2 t _ b1 _ b2 t _ x_a x_a-_a2 t _
x_b    it can be shown that :    y_0 = y_1+y_2 + y_3 + y_4=    if a thermal neutron detector is placed in region a , then the following @xmath133 , @xmath134 , @xmath135 and @xmath136 functions are to be used :    -y_1=    -y_2 =    - y_3 =    - y_4 =    where ,    l_3 = _ y_a y_a    l_2=-_a1f _
y_a y_a q_a1(x_a)+_a1 _ y_a y_a+_ar _ x_a y_a-_b1f _
y_a y_a q_b1(x_b)+_b1 _ y_a y_a+_b2 _ y_a y_a+_b2 t _ y_b y_a    l_1 = _ a1f _ b1f _
y_a y_a q_a1(x_a ) q_b1(x_b)-_a1f _ b1 _ y_a y_a q_a1(x_a)-_a1f _ b2 _
y_a y_a q_a1(x_a)-_a1f
y_b y_a q_a1(x_a)-_a1 _ b1f _
y_a y_a q_b1(x_b)+_a1 _ b1 _
y_a y_a+_a1 _ b2 _
y_a y_a+_a1 _ b2 t
_ y_b y_a-_a1 t _
x_a y_a q_b1(x_b)+_ar _ b1 _ x_a y_a+_ar _ b1 t _ x_b y_a+_ar _ b2 _ x_a y_a-_b1f _ b2 _
y_a y_a q_b1(x_b)-_b1f _ b2 t _ y_b y_a q_b1(x_b)-_b2f _ br _
y_a y_a q_b2(x_b)+_b1 _ b2 _
y_a y_a+_b1 _ b2 t _
y_b y_a+_b2 t _ br _
x_b y_a    l_0= _ a1f _ b1f _ b2 _
y_a y_a q_a1(x_a ) q_b1(x_b)+_a1f _ b1f _ b2 t _
y_b y_a q_a1(x_a ) q_b1(x_b)+_a1f _ b2f _ br _
y_a y_a q_a1(x_a ) q_b2(x_b)-_a1f _ b1 _ b2 _ y_a y_a q_a1(x_a)-_a1f _ b1 _ b2 t _ y_b y_a q_a1(x_a)-_a1f _ b2 t _ br _
x_b y_a q_a1(x_a)-_a1 _ b1f _ b2
_ y_a y_a q_b1(x_b)-_a1 _ b1f _ b2 t _
y_b y_a q_b1(x_b)-_a1
y_a y_a q_b2(x_b)+_a1 _ b1 _ b2 _
y_a y_a+_a1 _ b1 _ b2 t _ y_b y_a+_a1 _ b2 t _ br _
y_a-_a1 t _
b1 t _ b2 _
y_a y_a-_a1 t _
b1 t _ b2 t _
y_b y_a+_a1 t _
_ x_a y_a-_ar _ b1f _ b2 _
x_a y_a q_b1(x_b)+_ar _
y_b y_a q_b2(x_b)-_ar
x_a y_a q_b2(x_b)+_ar _ b1 _ b2 _ x_a y_a+_ar _ b1 t _ b2
_ x_b y_a    it can be shown that :    y_0=y_1+y_2+y_3+y_4=    for the case when a fast neutron detector is placed in region b , the following @xmath133 , @xmath134 , @xmath135 and @xmath136 functions should be used :    -y_1=    -y_2 =    - y_3 =    - y_4 =    where ,    m_3 = _
x_b x_b    m_2=-_a1f _
x_b x_b q_a1(x_a)+_a1 _ x_b x_b+_a1 t
_ x_a x_b+_a2 _
x_b x_b+_b2f _
x_b y_b q_b2(x_b)+_b2 _ x_b x_b    m_1 = -_a1f _ a2 _ x_b x_b q_a1(x_a)-_a1f _ b2f _
x_b y_b q_a1(x_a ) q_b2(x_b)-_a1f _ b2 _ x_b x_b q_a1(x_a)+_a1 t _ a2f _ x_b y_a q_a2(x_a)-_a2f _ ar _ x_b x_b
q_a2(x_a)+_a1 _ a2 _ x_b x_b+_a1 _ b2f _
x_b y_b q_b2(x_b)+_a1 _ b2 _ x_b x_b+_a1 t _ a2 _ x_a x_b+_a1 t _ b2 _
x_a x_b+_a2 _ b2f _
x_b y_b q_b2(x_b)+_a2 _ b2 _ x_b x_b+_a2 t _ b2f _
x_b y_a q_b2(x_b)-_a2 t _
x_b    m_0=-_a1f _ a2 _ b2f _
x_b y_b q_a1(x_a ) q_b2(x_b)-_a1f _ a2 _ b2
_ x_b x_b q_a1(x_a)-_a1f _ a2 t
x_b y_a q_a1(x_a ) q_b2(x_b)+_a1f _ a2 t _
x_b q_a1(x_a)+_a1 t _ a2f _
x_b y_a q_a2(x_a)+_a1 t _
y_b q_a2(x_a)-_a2f _ ar _ b2f _
x_b y_b q_a2(x_a ) q_b2(x_b)-_a2f _ ar _ b2 _ x_b x_b q_a2(x_a)+_a1 _ a2 _
x_b y_b q_b2(x_b)+_a1 _ a2 _ b2 _ x_b x_b+_a1 _
x_b y_a q_b2(x_b)-_a1 _ a2 t _ b2 t
x_b+_a1 t _
x_a x_b-_a1 t _
x_b+_a2 t _ ar _ b2f _
x_a x_b q_b2(x_b )    it can be shown that :    y_0=y_1+y_2+y_3+y_4=    if a thermal neutron detector is placed in region b , the following @xmath133 , @xmath134 , @xmath135 and @xmath136 functions should be used :    -y_1=    -y_2 =    - y_3 =    - y_4 =    where ,    p_3 = _ y_b y_b    p_2=-_a1f _ y_b y_b q_a1(x_a)+_a1
_ y_b y_b+_a2 _
y_b y_b+_a2 t _
y_b y_a-_b1f _ y_b y_b q_b1(x_b)+_b1
_ y_b y_b+_br _ x_b y_b    p_1 = -_a1f _ a2 _ y_b y_b q_a1(x_a)-_a1f _ a2 t
_ y_b y_a q_a1(x_a)+_a1f _ b1f _
y_b y_b q_a1(x_a ) q_b1(x_b)-_a1f _ b1 _ y_b y_b q_a1(x_a)-_a1f _ br _
x_b y_b q_a1(x_a)-_a2f _ ar _
y_b y_b q_a2(x_a)+_a1 _ a2 _
y_b y_b+_a1 _ a2 t _
y_b y_a-_a1 _ b1f _
y_b y_b q_b1(x_b)+_a1 _ b1 _ y_b y_b+_a1 _
y_b-_a1 t _
y_b y_b+_a1 t _ br _ x_a y_b-_a2 _ b1f _
y_b y_b q_b1(x_b)+_a2 _ b1 _ y_b y_b+_a2 _
y_b+_a2 t _ ar _
y_b-_a2 t _
y_b y_a q_b1(x_b)+_a2 t _ b1 _
y_b y_a    p_0=_a1f _ a2 _ b1f _
y_b y_b q_a1(x_a ) q_b1(x_b)-_a1f _ a2 _ b1 _ y_b y_b q_a1(x_a)-_a1f _ a2 _ br _
x_b y_b q_a1(x_a)+_a1f _ a2 t _ b1f _ y_b y_a q_a1(x_a ) q_b1(x_b)-_a1f _ a2 t _ b1 _
y_b y_a q_a1(x_a)+_a1 t _ a2f _
y_b y_a q_a2(x_a)+_a2f _ ar _ b1f _
y_b y_b q_a2(x_a ) q_b1(x_b)-_a2f _ ar _ b1 _ y_b y_b q_a2(x_a)-_a2f _ ar _ br _
x_b y_b q_a2(x_a)-_a1 _ a2 _ b1f _
y_b y_b q_b1(x_b)+_a1 _ a2 _ b1 _ y_b y_b+_a1 _ a2 _
x_b y_b-_a1 _
y_b y_a q_b1(x_b)+_a1 _ a2 t _ b1 _
y_b y_a-_a1 t _ a2 _ b1 t _
y_b y_b+_a1 t _ a2 _
y_b-_a1 t _
y_b y_a-_a2 t _ ar _ b1f _ x_a y_b q_b1(x_b)+_a2 t _ ar _ b1 _ x_a y_b+_a2 t _ ar _ b1 t _
y_b    it can be shown that :    y_0=y_1+y_2+y_3+y_4=.    quantitative examples of the feynman y(t ) function will be given shortly .      in order to derive the two - group one - point feynman - alpha theory
let us assume that the source s is switched on at the time @xmath66 , while the detection process is started at the fixed time instant @xmath67 , where @xmath68 and @xmath69 . for convenience ,
we consider _
@xmath67=0_. let the random processes @xmath137 , @xmath138 and @xmath139 represent the number of fast neutrons , thermal neutrons and delayed neutron precursors at the time @xmath74 , and @xmath140 , @xmath141 - the number of fast and thermal particle detections in the time interval _ [ @xmath67 , t ] _ , respectively .
thus , the joint probability of having @xmath142 fast neutrons , @xmath143 thermal neutrons and c delayed neutron precursors present in system at time @xmath0 , and that @xmath144 fast neutrons and @xmath145 thermal neutrons have been detected during the period @xmath88 can be defined as @xmath146 . by summing up the probabilities of the mutually exclusive events of the particle not having or having a specific reaction or that there is a source emission within the infinitesimally small time interval d@xmath0 ,
one can write :    = -(_1n_1+_2n_2+c+s_1)p(n_1,n_2,c , z_1,z_2,t ) + _ 1a(n_1 + 1)p(n_1 + 1,n_2,c , z_1,z_2,t ) + _ 2a(n_2 + 1)p(n_1,n_2 + 1,c , z_1,z_2,t ) + _ 1f_k^n_1 + 1_l^c(n_1 + 1-k)f_1f(k , l)p(n_1 + 1-k , n_2,c - l , z_1,z_2,t ) + _ 2f_k^n_1_l^c(n_2 + 1)f_2f(k , l)p(n_1-k , n_2 +
1,c - l , z_1,z_2,t ) + _ r(n_1 + 1)p(n_1 + 1,n_2 - 1,c , z_1,z_2,t ) +
_ 1d(n_1 + 1)p(n_1 + 1,n_2,c , z_1 - 1,z_2,t ) + _ 2d(n_2 + 1)p(n_1,n_2 + 1,c , z_1,z_2 - 1,t ) + ( c+1)p(n_1 - 1,n_2,c+1,z_1,z_2,t ) + s_1_n^n_1p_q(n)p(n_1-n , n_2,c , z_1,z_2,t )    with initial condition    p(n_1,n_2,c , z_1,z_2,t = t_0t_0 ) = _ n_1,0 _ n_2,0 _ c,0 _ z_1,0 _ z_2,0    and    _ n_1 _ n_2 _ c p(n_1,n_2,c , z_1,z_2,t = t_dt_0 ) = _ z_1,0 _ z_2,0    by defining the following generating function for the probability distribution @xmath147 :    g(x , y , v , m , n , t)= _
n_1 _ n_2 _ c _
z_1_z_2 x^n_1 y^n_2 v^c m^z_1 n^z_2 p(n_1,n_2,c , z_1,z_2,t )    with initial condition for @xmath92    g(x , y , v , m , n , t = t_0t_0 ) = 1    and    g(1,1,1,m , n , t = t_dt_0 ) = 1    the following partial differential equation is obtained :    = [ _ 1a+ _ ry + q_1(x , v ) _
1f + _ 1d m - _ 1 x ] + [ _ 2a + q_2(x , v)_2f + _ 2d n - _ 2 y ] + ( x - v)+ s_1 [ r(x ) - 1 ] g ,    where    q_1 ( x , v ) = _ k _
v^l f_1f(k , l )    q_2 ( x , v ) = _ k _
v^l f_2f(k , l )    r(x ) = _
n p_q(n ) x^n    here , @xmath148__(k , l ) _ _ is the probability of having _ k _ prompt neutrons and _ l _ delay neutron precursors produced in a fission event induced by a fast neutron , @xmath149__(k , l ) _ _ is the probability of having _ k _ prompt neutrons and _ l _ delay neutron precursors produced in a fission event induced by a thermal neutron .
the effective delayed neutron fraction is @xmath150 , @xmath151 and @xmath152 are the average total number of neutrons per fast and thermal induced fission , respectively . for the sake of simplicity ,
some identities are used in the solution as below ( @xmath93 ) :    .q_i ( x , v)|_x=1,v=1= _ k _ l k f_if(k , l ) = ( 1-)_i    .q_i ( x , v)|_x=1,v=1= _ k _
l l f_if(k , l ) = _
i    and    .r ( x)|_x=1= _ n n p_q(n ) = r    .r ( x)|_x=1= _ n n(n-1 ) p_q(n ) = r     in a steady subcritical medium with a steady source ,
when @xmath107 , the following stationary solutions for the neutron populations @xmath153 , @xmath154 and @xmath155 , and detection counts @xmath144 and @xmath145 are obtained as below :                        by introducing the modified second factorial moment of the random variables a and b as follows @xmath116= @xmath117 - @xmath118 , @xmath119 and then taking cross- and auto - derivatives , the following system of differential equations of modified second factorial moments for the neutron population are obtained as below :    _ x x = s_1 r  + _ 2f _
2pp |n_2 + _ 1f _
1pp |n_1 + 2 _ x v+ 2 _ x x + 2 ( 1- ) _ 2f _
2 _ x y    _ x y = _ y v+(1- ) _
2f _ 2 _ y y+_x y+_r_x x    _ y y=-2 _ 2_yy + 2 _ r _ xy    _ x v=_vv+_2f _ 2pd |n_2 + ( 1- ) _ 2f _ 2 _ yv+_1f_1pd |n_1 + _ xv+_2f _ 2 _ xy+_1f _ 1 _ xx    _ y v = ( --_2 ) _ yv + _ 2f _ 2 _ yy+_r _ xv+_1f _ 1 _ xy    _
vv= -2 _ vv + _ 2f _ 2dd|n_2 + 2 _ 2f _ 2 _ yv+_1f _ 1dd |n_1 + 2 _ 1f _ 1 _ xv    the three coefficients @xmath127 , @xmath128 and @xmath129 can be obtained by solving the third order equation in @xmath131 with known constant coefficients a , b , c :    ^3 + a^2+b+c = 0    where    a= _ 1 _ 1f-_1 _ 1f++_1+_2=-(_1 + _
2+_3 )    b= _ 2 _ 1 _ 1f-_1 _ 1f-_2 _ 1 _ 1f+_2 _ 2f _ r-_2 _ 2f _ r+_1+_2 _ 1+_2    c=-_2 _ 1 _ 1f-_2 _ 2f _ r+_1 _ 2=-_1 _ 2_3    the stationary modified variance of the fast particle detections can be obtained from the coupled equation system by using the laplace transform technique :    _ x m = _ vm+(1- ) _ 2f _ 2 _ ym+(-_1+(1- ) _ 1f _ 1 ) _
xm+_1d _ xx    _
y m= -_2 _ ym+_r _ xm+_1d _ xy    _ v m = -_vm+_2f _ 2 _ ym+_1d _ xv+_1f _ 1 _ xm    _ mm = 2 _ 1d_xm    the same can be done to define the stationary modified variance of the thermal particle detections via solving the following coupled equation system :    _ x n = _
vn+(1- ) _ 2f _ 2 _ yn+(-_1+(1- ) _ 1f _ 1 ) _ xn+_2d _
n = -_2 _ yn+_r _ xn+_2d _ yy    _ v n = -_vn+_2f _ 2 _ yn+_2d _ yv+_1f _ 1 _ xn    _ nn = 2 _ 2d_yn    some second moment notations were introduced as follows :    .q_i ( x , v)|_x=1,v=1= _ k _ l k(k-1 ) f_if(k , l ) = _ ipp    .q_i ( x , v)|_x=1,v=1= _ k _
l l(l-1 ) f_if(k , l ) = _ idd    .q_i ( x , v)|_x=1,v=1= _ k _ l kl f_if(k , l ) = _ ipd    in which @xmath93 .
thus , the solution for the two - group one - point feynman - alpha formula for fast and thermal detection particles can be written as below :    = 1 + y(t)=1 + _
i=1 ^ 3 y_i ( 1 - ) .    for fast particle detections
the following expressions should be used :    -y_1=-    -y_2 =    -y_3 =    with    k_2=_xx    k_1=-_2f _ 2 _ xy+_2f _ 2 _ xy+_xv+_xx+_2 _ xx    k_0=_2f _ 2 _ xy+_2 _ xv+_2 _ xx    it can be shown that :    y_0 = y_1+y_2 + y_3=    if a thermal neutron detector is used , then the following expressions should be considered :    -y_1=-    -y_2 =    -y_3 =    with    l_2=_yy    l_1=_1f _ 1 _ yy-_1f _ 1 _ yy+_r _ xy+_yy+_1 _ yy    l_0=-_1f _ 1 _ yy+_r _ xy+_r _ yv+_1 _ yy    it can be shown that :    y_0 = y_1+y_2 + y_3=      similarly as in the derivation of two - group one - point version of feynman - alpha formula , in the one - group two - point feynman - alpha theory the joint probability of having @xmath156 neutrons in region a , @xmath157 neutrons in region b , @xmath158 delayed neutron precursors presented in region a , @xmath159 delayed neutron precursors presented in region b at time @xmath0 , @xmath160 neutrons have been detected in region a , and @xmath161 neutrons have been detected in region b in the system during the period of time @xmath88 can be defined as @xmath162.by summing up all mutually exclusive events of the particle not having or having a specific reaction within the infinitesimally small time interval d@xmath0 , it can be written :    = -(_an_a+_bn_b+_acc_a+_bcc_b+s_a+s_b)p(n_a , n_b , c_a , c_b , z_a , z_b , t )    + _ aa(n_a+1)p(n_a+1,n_b , c_a , c_b , z_a , z_b , t ) + _ ba(n_b+1)p(n_a , n_b+1,c_a , c_b , z_a , z_b , t ) + _ af_k^n_a+1_l^c_a(n_a+1-k)f_a(k , l)p(n_a+1-k , n_b , c_a - l , c_b , z_a , z_b , t ) + _ bf_k^n_b+1_l^c_b(n_b+1-k)f_b(k , l)p(n_a , n_b+1-k , c_a , c_b - l , z_a , z_b , t ) + _ at(n_a+1)p(n_a+1,n_b-1,c_a , c_b , z_a , z_b , t ) + _ bt(n_b+1)p(n_a-1,n_b+1,c_a , c_b , z_a , z_b , t ) + _ ac(c_a+1)p(n_a-1,n_b , c_a+1,c_b , z_a , z_b , t ) + _ bc(c_b+1)p(n_a , n_b-1,c_a , c_b+1,z_a , z_b , t ) + _ ad(n_a+1)p(n_a+1,n_b , c_a , c_b , z_a-1,z_b , t ) + _ bd(n_b+1)p(n_a , n_b+1,c_a , c_b , z_a , z_b-1,t ) +
s_a_n^n_ap_a(n)p(n_a - n , n_b , c_a , c_b , z_a , z_b , t ) + s_b_n^n_bp_b(n)p(n_a ,
n_b - n , c_a , c_b , z_a , z_b , t )    with initial condition    p(n_a , n_b , c_a , c_b , z_a , z_b , t = t_0t_0 ) = _ n_a,0 _ n_b,0 _ c_a,0 _ c_b,0 _ z_a,0 _ z_b,0    and    _ n_a _ n_b _ c_a_c_b p(n_a , n_b , c_a , c_b , z_a , z_b , t = t_dt_0 ) = _ z_a,0 _ z_b,0    by defining the following generating function for the probability distribution @xmath163 :    g(x , y , v , w , m , n , t ) = _ n_a _ n_b _ c_a_c_b _ z_a_z_b x^n_a y^n_b v^c_aw^c_b
m^z_a n^z_bp(n_a , n_b , c_a , c_b , z_a , z_b , t )    with initial condition for @xmath92    g(x , y , v , w , m , n , t = t_0t_0 ) = 1    and    g(1,1,1,1,m , n , t = t_dt_0 ) = 1    a partial differential equation in the variables @xmath164 in terms of generating function can be obtained :    = [ _ aa+_aty + q_a(x , v ) _ af + _ ad m - _ a x ] + [ _ ba + _ btx + q_b(y , w)_bf + _ bd n - _ b y ] + _ ac ( x - v ) + _ bc ( y - w ) + s_a [ r_a(x ) - 1 ] g + s_b [ r_b(y ) - 1]g    where    q_a ( x , v ) = _
v^l f_a(k , l )    q_b ( y , w ) = _ k _
w^l f_b(k , l )    r_a(x)=_n p_a(n ) x^n
r_b(y ) = _
n p_b(n ) y^n    here , @xmath165 and @xmath166 are the effective delayed neutron fractions in region a and region b , respectively . for the sake of simplicity ,
some identities are used in the solution as below ( @xmath167 ) :    .q_a ( x , v)|_x=1,v=1= _ k _ l k f_af(k , l ) = ( 1-_a)_a    .q_a ( x , v)|_x=1,v=1= _ k _
l l f_af(k , l ) = _ a_a    .q_b ( y , w)|_y=1,w=1= _ k _ l k f_bf(k , l ) = ( 1-_b)_b    .q_b ( y , w)|_y=1,w=1= _ k _
l l f_bf(k , l ) = _
b_b    and    .r_a ( x)|_x=1= _
n n p_a(n ) = r_a    .r_a ( x)|_x=1= _ n n(n-1 ) p_a(n ) = r_a     .r_b
( y)|_y=1= _ n n p_b(n ) = r_b    .r_b ( y)|_y=1=_n n(n-1 ) p_b(n ) = r_b     in a steady subcritical medium with a steady source , when @xmath107 , the following stationary solutions for the neutron population and detection counts are obtained as follows :                            by introducing the modified second factorial moments and then taking cross- and auto - derivatives , the following system of differential equations of modified second factorial moments for the neutron population are obtained as below :    _ x x = 2 _ xx + 2 _ bt _ xy + 2 _ ac_xv+ s_a r_a+ _ af _ app|n_a    _ x y = _ ac_yv+ _ bc_xw+ _
_ y y = 2 _ yy + 2 _ at _ xy + 2 _ bc_yw+ s_b r_b+ _ bf _ bpp |n_b    _ xv= ( ( 1-_a ) _ a _ af - _ a  - _ ac ) _ xv+_a _
a _ af _ xx+ _ ac _ vv + _ bt
_ yv+ _ af _ apd |n_a    _ yv = _ bc _ vw+_yv + _ at _ xv+_a _ af _ a _ xy    _ vv = -2 _ ac_vv+2 _ a _ af _ a _ xv + _ af _ add |n_a    _ xw= _ ac _ vw+ _ bt _
yw+_xw + _ b _ bf _ b _ xy
_ yw= _ bc_ww + _ yw + _ b _ bf _ b _ yy + _ at_xw + _ bf _ bpd |n_b    _ vw= ( - _ ac- _ bc ) _ vw + _ b _ bf _ b _ yv+_a _ af _ a _ xw    _
ww= -2 _ bc _ ww + 2 _ b _ bf _ b _ yw + _ bf _ bdd |n_b    where    .q_a ( x , v)|_x=1,v=1= _ k
_ l k(k-1 ) f_af(k , l ) = _ app    .q_b ( y , w)|_y=1,w=1= _ k _ m k(k-1 ) f_bf(k , m ) = _ bpp    .q_a ( x , v)|_x=1,v=1= _ k _
l l(l-1 ) f_af(k , l ) = _ add    .q_b ( y , w)|_y=1,w=1= _ k _
l l(l-1 ) f_bf(k , l ) = _ bdd    .q_a ( x , v)|_x=1,v=1= _ k _ l kl f_af(k , l ) = _ apd    .q_b ( y , w)|_y=1,w=1= _ k _ l kl f_bf(k , l ) = _ bpd    the system above is solved for stationary case when @xmath168 .
four roots @xmath127 , @xmath128 , @xmath129 and @xmath130 can be obtained by solving the forth order equation with coefficients a , b , c , d specified as below :    ^4 + a^3+b^2+c+d = 0    a=_a _ af _ a-_af _ a+_a+_ac+_b _ bf _ b-_bf _ b+_b+_bc    b=-_ac _ af _ a+_a _ ac+_a _ af _ b _ a-_a _ af _ bf _ a _ b+_a _ af _ b _ bf _ a _ b-_af _ b _ bf _ a _ b+_af _ bf _ a _ b-_af _ b _
a+_a _ af _ bc
bc _ a+_a _
b _ bf _ b-_a _
bf _ b+_a _
b+_a _ bc+_ac _
b _ bf _ b-_ac _
bf _ b+_ac _
b+_ac _ bc-_at _ bt-_bc _
bf _ b+_b _ bc    c=-_ac _ af _ b _ bf _ a _ b+_ac _ af _ bf _ a _ b-_ac _ af _ b _ a-_ac _ af _ bc _ a+_a _ ac _ b _ bf _ b-_a _ ac _ bf _ b+_a _ ac _ b+_a _ ac _ bc+_a _ af _ b _ bc _ a-_a
_ af _ bc _ bf _ a _ b+_af _ bc _ bf _ a _ b-_af _ b _ bc _ a-_a _
bf _ b+_a _
b _ bc-_ac _ at _ bt-_ac _ bc _ bf _ b+_ac _ b _ bc-_at _ bc _ bt    d=_ac _ af _ bc _ bf _ a _ b-_ac _ af _ b _ bc _ a-_a
_ ac _ bc _ bf _ b+_a _ ac _ b _ bc-_ac _ at _ bc _ bt    the stationary modified variance of the particle detections in region a can be obtained from the coupled equation system by using the laplace transform technique :    _ xm = _
ac_vm + _ bt _ ym + _ xm + _ ad _ xx    _ ym= _ bc _
wm+_ym+ _ at _ xm+ _ ad _ xy    _ vm = - _
ac_vm + _ a _ af _ a _ xm + _ ad _ xv    _ wm = - _ bc _
ym+ _ ad _ xw    _ mm = 2 _ ad_xm    a similar coupled equation system can be derived for the particle detections in region b :    _ xn= _ ac _ vn+ _ bt _ yn+_xn+ _
bd_xy    _ yn= _ bc_wn + _ yn+ _ at _ xn + _ bd _ yy    _ vn= - _ ac_vn + _ a _ af _ a _ xn + _ bd _ yv    _ wn= - _ bc _ wn + _ b _ bf _ b _ yn + _ bd _ yw    _ nn = 2 _ bd_yn    thus , a final expression for the two - point one - group feynman - alpha formula for region a and b is written below :    = 1+y(t)+ 1 + _
i=1 ^ 4 y_i ( 1 - )    if the detector is placed in region a , the following expressions for the functions @xmath169 should be used :    -y_1 =    -y_2 =    - y_3 =    - y_4 =    and it can be proved that :    y_0 = y_1+y_2 + y_3 + y_4=    where    k_3=_xx    k_2=_ac _ xv+_ac _ xx+_b _ bf _ xx _ b-_bf _ xx _ b+_b _ xx+_bc _ xx+_bt _ xy    k_1=_ac _ b _ bf _ xv _ b-_ac _ bf _ xv _ b+_ac _
b _ bf _ xx _ b-_ac _ bf _ xx _ b+_ac _
b _ xv+_ac _
b _ xx+_ac _ bc _
xv+_ac _ bc _
xx+_ac _ bt _ xy-_bc _ bf _
b+_b _ bc _
xx+_bc _ bt _
xw+_bc _ bt _ xy    k_0=-_ac _ bc _ bf _ xv _
b-_ac _ bc _ bf _ xx _ b+_ac _ b _ bc _
xx+_ac _ bc _ bt _
xw+_ac _ bc _ bt _ xy    if the detector is placed in region b , the following expressions for the functions @xmath169 should be used :    -y_1 =    -y_2 =    - y_3 =    - y_4 =    and it can be proved that :    y_0 = y_1+y_2 + y_3 + y_4=    where    l_3=_yy    l_2=_a _ af _ yy _ a-_af _ yy _ a+_a _ yy+_ac _ yy+_at _ xy+_bc _ yw+_bc _ yy    l_1=-_ac _ af _ yy _
a+_a _ ac _ yy+_a _ af _ bc _ yw _ a-_af _ bc _ yw _ a+_a _ af _ bc _ yy _ a-_af _ bc _ yy _ a+_a _ bc _
yw+_a _ bc _
yy+_ac _ at _ xy+_ac _ at _ yv+_ac _ bc _
yw+_ac _ bc _ yy+_at _ bc _ xy    l_0=-_ac _ af _ bc _ yw _ a-_ac _ af _ bc _ yy _ a+_a _ ac _ bc _ yw+_a _ ac _ bc _
yy+_ac _ at _ bc
_ xy+_ac _ at _ bc _ yv
in the following , we shall perform a comparison of the two - point two - group version of the feynman - alpha theoretical formula to the two - point one - group , the one - point two - group and the one - point one - group ( i.e. traditional ) versions .
[ sec:9 ]      in order to compare the four different versions of the feynman - alpha theory , quantitative values of the transition probabilities and reaction intensities were obtained by using monte - carlo simulations in a way similar to that described in @xcite .
the simulation setup consists of two regions , region a and region b , as shown in figure [ fig:2 ] .
region a represents nuclear material ( radius 4.46 cm ) , in particular a mixture of 2.5% @xmath170u and 97.5% @xmath171u .
region b consists of a moderating material with a thickness of 21 cm .
the neutron source emits the neutrons with an energy of 2.5 mev .
two cases are considered in the simulations , one when the neutron source is in the center of region a and another when the neutron source is at a distance of 15 cm from the center of the nuclear material , in region b. two point detectors , in region a and in region b , are included in the simulation setup . delay neutron precursors are not included in the simulations .
initially , the transition probabilities and reaction intensities are obtained in simulations for the two - point two - group case .
then , the values of reaction intensities of the two - point two - group case are condensed in order to get the reaction intensities which correspond to the two - point one - group , the one - point two - group and one - point one - group cases .
afterwards , these values are used in order to obtain the values of the @xmath7 and @xmath172 coefficients in the feynman - alpha formulas for the cases when the source is in region a , and in region b for fast neutron detections and thermal neutron detections , as shown in table [ table : tab1]-[table : tab4 ] , respectively .
.the values of the @xmath173 and @xmath174 calculated for four various versions of feynman - alpha formulas ( the source is in region a , fast neutron detector is used either in region a or b ) . [ cols= "
> , > , > , > , > " , ]     [ table : tab4 ]    since there is only one region considered in the two - group one - point and the one - point one - group feynman - alpha formulas , the coefficients are the same for the detection in the different regions of the initial system used for the simulations .
the same is true for the energy - dependent factor in the two - point one - group and the one - point one - group feynman - alpha formulas , the coefficients are the same for the fast and thermal neutron detection .
* attention ! * in the studies described below we assume that the two - point two - group version of feynman - alpha formulas gives the most accurate predictions as the most involved one among the four various versions , i.e. the two - point two - group , the two - point one - group , the two - group one - point and one - point one - group theories
.      figures [ fig:4]-[fig:5 ] show a quantitative illustration of the dependence of the variance to mean of the number of fast neutron detections on the detection time for four versions of feynman - alpha theories when the source is in region a. different curves in figures [ fig:4]-[fig:5 ] are created based on the parameter values from table [ table : tab1]-[table : tab2 ] .        as it is shown in figure [ fig:4 ] , when fast neutrons are detected in region a , the two - point two - group , the two - point one - group and one - point one - group versions of the feynman - alpha theoretical formulas give very similar results . however , the one - point two - group version of the formulas overestimates the asymptotic ratio of the variance to mean .
thus , we can conclude that the region dependence of the model plays a more important role than the energy dependence for the case when the source and the fast neutron detector are both placed in the region of the nuclear material . therefore , in this situation all three versions of the feynman - alpha theory , the two - point two - group , the two - point one - group and one - point one - group , can be used , although it is more time - efficient to use the one - group one - point version of the feynman - alpha theory . as an example , in reality this case may be related to the measurements performed in the spent fuel pool when the detector is placed in the control tube of fuel assembly .        in the case when the fast neutron detector is in region
b ( figure [ fig:5 ] ) , a slight difference is observed between the two - point two - group and the two - point one - group versions of feynman - alpha theories . at the same time , the one - point two - group and one - point one - group versions of feynman - alpha theory significantly overestimate the values of variance to mean ratio obtained with the two - point two - group version of the formulas .
thus , in this case two versions of feynman - alpha theory , the two - point two - group and the two - point one - group can be used , although it is more time - efficient to use the two - point one - group version for quantitative estimates .
the differences between the various versions of feynman - alpha theory are significantly higher when the neutron source is placed in region b and the fast neutron detector is in either region a or b , see figures [ fig:6]-[fig:7 ] .        in all cases
when the fast neutron detector is used , the two - point two - group version of feynman - alpha formulas produce high values of the asymptotic variance - to - mean ratio compared to results obtained with other versions , i.e. the two - point one - group , one - point two - group and one - point one - group versions of the theory .      regarding thermal neutron detection , when the source and the detector are in region a ( figure [ fig:8 ] ) , the three special versions of the feynman - alpha theory , the two - point one - group , the one - point two - group and the one - point one - group , all deviate significantly from the two - point two - group version .
however , the one - point one - group theory gives very similar predictions of the ratio of the variance to mean as the two - point one - group theory . at the same time , the two - group one - point theory provides somewhat more accurate results .
thus , the impact of the energy - dependence appears to be somewhat higher than the impact of the space - dependence .        when the thermal neutron detection is performed in region b ( figure [ fig:9 ] )
, we may conclude that both the space - dependent and energy - dependent aspects play important role for this case .
if the source is in region b and detection is performed in region a ( figure [ fig:10 ] ) , the two - point one - group version of the feynman - alpha theory gives results which are closer to the one obtained with two - point two - group theory .
thus , the impact of the space - dependence to the final results is higher than the impact of energy - dependence .
although , for a case of detector and source being placed in region b ( figures [ fig:11 ] ) , the two - point one - group , two - group one - point and one - group one - point versions provide results of the variance - to - mean ratio that are significantly deviating from the ratio obtained by using the two - point two - group theory .
thus , the space - dependent and energy - dependent aspects , both play the important role in this situation .
in general , we can say that for the thermal neutron detections when the detection is done in region a , the energy - dependence has a higher impact to the ratio of the variance to mean than the space - dependent factor .
on the other hand , for detection in region b both factors should be equally taken into account .
the two - group two - point version of feynman - alpha theory was derived with a use of the forward master equation technique . the two - group one - point feynman - alpha theory ( with delay neutrons )
is extended by including fast neutron detections and and fast fissions . the two - point one - group variance - to - mean formula ( with delay neutrons )
is enhanced as well , by including detection and source terms in both regions .
thus , this gives the possibility of treating fast reflected systems in a more accurate way , by treating the counts separately in the fast and the thermal groups ( or in the nuclear material ( fissile region ) and reflector regions ) .
the comparative study of the two - group two - point , the two - group one - point , the one - group two - point and the one - group one - point feynman - alpha models is made by using the specific reaction intensities obtained in monte - carlo simulations .
it is shown that for all cases when the fast neutron detector is used in measurements , the space - dependent aspect has a higher impact on the final results than the energy - dependent aspect .
in particular , when the source and the fast neutron detector , both placed in the region of nuclear material three versions of feynman - alpha theory provides similar accuracy in the determination of the variance to mean ratio .
namely , the two - point two - group , the two - point one - group and one - point one - group can be used , although it is more time - efficient to use the one - group one - point version of the feynman - alpha theory .
the situation is not so optimistic for a case , when the fast neutron detector is in region b , because a slight difference is observed between all versions of the theories .
the one - point two - group and one - point one - group versions of feynman - alpha theory significantly overestimate the values of variance to mean ratio obtained with the two - point two - group version of the formulas .
therefore , in this case two versions of feynman - alpha theory , the two - point two - group , the two - point one - group can be considered as the accurate qualitative estimates . regarding the use of the thermal neutron detections , both energy- and space - dependent factors are important to take into account .
when the detection is done in region a , the space - dependence has a higher impact to the ratio of the variance to mean than the energy - dependence , while , for detection in region b both factors should be equally considered .


one aspect of space weather forecasting involves the prediction of coronal mass ejection ( cme ) arrival times at earth , which may or may not lead to a geomagnetic storm at that time .
assuming it is reasonably well established that a solar eruption is indeed headed towards earth , an accurate assessment of its arrival time depends on both an accurate measurement of the cme s initial velocity , and some estimate of how that velocity will change during its passage through the interplanetary medium ( ipm ) .    the stereo mission @xcite provides substantial improvements in our ability to study both these aspects of cme kinematics .
the lateral views that the two stereo spacecraft have of the sun - earth line provide ideal vantage points for measuring the radial velocities of earth - directed cmes .
in contrast , from the perspective of a near - earth instrument such as the large angle spectrometric coronagraph ( lasco ) instrument @xcite on board the _ solar and heliospheric observatory _ ( soho ) , an observer will only be able to perceive the lateral expansion of the cme . as for ipm propagation
, the heliospheric imagers on board the two stereo spacecraft allow for continuous cme tracking all the way to 1  au .
we will be studying here the effects of the ambient solar wind on a shock generated by a fast cme originating on 2011  march  7 .
the source region of the cme is just to the east of a coronal hole , which has a dramatic effect on the shape of the shock both close to the sun and in the ipm . the western half of the shock propagates outwards through high speed wind from the coronal hole , ultimately hitting stereo - a on march  9 , while the eastern half propagates outwards through slow speed wind , ultimately hitting earth a day later on march  10 .
in addition to the indications of shock deformation provided by the in  situ data , heliospheric images of the event also show signatures of the uneven shock geometry caused by the high speed wind from the coronal hole .
this is therefore an ideal event for studying the effects of an inhomogeneous solar wind on shock morphology .
we will empirically reconstruct the shock shape from the data , and we will also examine whether mhd models of the inner heliosphere can successfully reproduce the inferred shape .
figure  1 shows a carrington map of euv emission from the solar corona , for carrington rotation number 2107 , created from 195  bandpass euvi images from stereo - a .
the positions of earth , stereo - a , and stereo - b are indicated for 2011  march  7 . at this time , stereo - a
was located @xmath0 ahead of earth in its orbit around the sun , at a distance of 0.96  au from sun - center , and stereo - b was @xmath1 behind earth , at a distance of 1.02  au .
figure  2 explicitly displays the spacecraft geometry in the ecliptic plane , in heliocentric aries ecliptic coordinates .
there are two cmes on 2011  march  7 that we will be modeling , one from active region ar1166 , and one from ar1164 .
the locations of these two active regions are identified in figure  1 .
the first cme , which we will call cme1 , begins with an m1.9 flare from ar1166 at 13:45 , while the second cme , cme2 , begins with an m3.7 flare from ar1164 at 19:43 .
it is the second event that we are primarily interested in , but the two cmes end up overlapping in the inner heliosphere , so it is necessary to consider observations of both .
each stereo spacecraft carries a package of imagers called the sun - earth connection coronal and heliospheric investigation ( secchi ) , which includes two coronagraphs ( cor1 and cor2 ) and two heliospheric imagers ( hi1 and hi2 ) that observe cmes both close to the sun and in the inner heliosphere @xcite .
the fields of view of hi1 and hi2 are illustrated in figure  2 .
the top two panels of figure  3 show images of the two march  7 cmes as seen from stereo - a s perspective , specifically by the cor2-a telescope .
these images , and all other images shown in this paper , are displayed in running difference format , where the previous image is subtracted from each image to effectively remove static coronal structures and emphasize the dynamic cme .
the second cme consists of two distinct components : the ejecta , which is directed towards the northeast in the image , and a bright front out ahead of the ejecta , which is the shock wave created by this fast , supersonic cme .
curiously , the ejecta is not at all well centered within the shock , in contrast to other cmes with visible shocks that we have studied recently @xcite .
although both the ejecta and shock have a northward component to their trajectory , the shock appears centered more to the west than the ejecta ( i.e. , more towards stereo - a ) .
we attribute this asymmetry to the presence of a coronal hole just to the west of the cme s source region , as shown in figure  1 . studying the effects of the coronal hole on this shock s morphology
is the focal point of this paper .
in contrast to cme2 , there is no bright front out ahead of cme1 indicative of a shock , presumably because cme1 is a much slower eruption and is not able to create a bright shock front . in cor2-a , the ejecta of the two cmes
are both directed towards the northeast , both possessing an angular extent of about @xmath2 .
the more easterly longitude of cme1 is indicated both by the location of its source region relative to that of cme2 ( see figure  1 ) and by lasco images of the two cmes .
the bottom panel of figure  3 is a lasco / c3 image in which both events are seen , with cme1 directed somewhat to the northeast of the sun - earth line , and the brighter cme2 directed to the northwest .
both 2011 march 7 cmes can be tracked all the way to 1  au using stereo s heliospheric imagers .
for cme1 , stereo - b provides a better vantage point for tracking the cme into the inner heliosphere , while for cme2 stereo - a is better .
figure  4 shows hi1-a and hi2-a images of cme2 . in hi1-a ,
cme2 quickly overtakes cme1 , such that by the time of the image in figure  4 the two cmes are superimposed on each other , complicating interpretation of the data .
although the expansion rate of cme2 slows dramatically in hi1-a , its leading edge still moves well in front of cme1 , and in the hi2-a image in figure  4 , the cme front seen is entirely that of cme2 .
as cme2 approaches the left edge of the hi1-a field , the shock at the front of the cme appears to split in two , as a foreground part of the shock appears to move ahead of a background portion .
this `` doubling '' of the shock front becomes even more apparent early in the hi2-a field of view .
the two fronts labeled f1 and f2 in the hi2-a image in figure  4 are both part of the cme2 shock .
our interpretation of this visage is illustrated in figure  2 .
the part of the cme2 shock propagating towards stereo - a in high speed wind emanating from the coronal hole seen in figure  1 becomes more radially extended than the part of the shock above the ejecta , which is propagating more towards earth through slow speed wind .
this creates a discontinuity in the shock shape in between the longitudes of earth and stereo - a , thereby creating two tangent points with the shock as viewed from stereo - a .
the outermost tangent point creates the outermost front , f1 , which is the foreground part of the shock from stereo - a s vantage point , and the inner tangent point yields the f2 front , corresponding to the slower part of the shock directed more towards earth .
this kind of asymmetry is to be expected on the basis of models of cme propagation into inhomogeneous solar wind @xcite .    to summarize ,
images from stereo demonstrate that the coronal hole s presence near the cme2 source region significantly affects the shape of the cme2 shock .
the two main observational signatures of this are the shock not being centered on the ejecta in cor2-a , and the doubling of the shock front in hi2-a .
the shock asymmetry can be studied further using in  situ data from stereo - a , and from _ wind _ at the l1 lagrangian point near earth .
the cme2 shock is broad enough to have hit both spacecraft , despite a nearly @xmath2 separation in longitude .
figure  5 shows plasma parameters measured at stereo - a and _ wind_. focusing first on stereo - a , where the meaurements are made by the plastic and impact instruments on board the spacecraft @xcite , on march  8 there is a density peak accompanied by a dramatic increase in wind speed and temperature , indicating that this is a corotating interaction region ( cir ) associated with the high speed wind emanating from the coronal hole just to the west of the cme2 source region ( ar1164 ; see figure  1 ) .
the shock of cme2 hits stereo - a at about 6:48 ut on march  9 , indicated by substantial jumps in density , velocity , temperature , and magnetic field . after a cme shock
, a signature of the cme ejecta driving the shock is often observed .
that is not the case at stereo - a , where nothing but normal high speed wind follows the shock .
this is an excellent example of the `` driverless shocks '' studied by @xcite .
the lack of a driver at stereo - a is not a surprise based on the apparent trajectory of the ejecta away from the sun - spacecraft line in cor2-a ( see figure  3 ) .
the cme2 shock also hits _ wind _ , but it does so over a day later at about 7:44 ut on march  10 ( see figure  5 ) .
this delayed arrival time is consistent with the shock shape displayed in figure  2 .
the shock arrival time discrepancy between stereo - a and _ wind _ provides another valuable diagnostic for the degree of asymmetry in the shock induced by the coronal hole and its high speed wind .    unlike at stereo - a
, there is ejecta observed following the cme2 shock at earth . not only is there a large density peak associated with this ejecta , but a lengthy period of negative @xmath3 on march 1011 ( see @xmath4 panel in figure  5 ) , which produces a modest but lengthy geomagnetic storm at this time , with the planetary k index reaching as high as @xmath5
the question is whether the ejecta is from cme1 or cme2 . for that matter ,
how sure are we that the shock seen by _ wind _ is associated with cme2 instead of cme1 ?
we will return to these issues after describing in detail how we have tried to empirically reconstruct the morphology and kinematics of the two 2011 march 7 cmes .
kinematic modeling of cme1 and cme2 is a necessary aspect of their 3-d reconstruction . for both cmes we track the leading edge of the ejecta ( as opposed to the shock in the case of cme2 ) . for cme1
, stereo - b provides the best vantage point to view the cme s ipm propagation , so stereo - b images are used to measure its elongation angle , @xmath6 , from sun - center as a function of time . for cme2 ,
stereo - a images are used instead .
these elongation angles are converted to actual distances from sun - center , @xmath7 , using the equation first championed by @xcite , @xmath8 where @xmath9 is the observer s distance to the sun , and @xmath10 is the angle between the cme trajectory and the observer s line of sight to the sun .
this equation is derived assuming that cme fronts can be approximated as spheres centered halfway in between their leading edges and the sun . by at least crudely taking into account a cme s lateral extent
, this equation will be applicable to more viewing geometries than the alternative `` fixed-@xmath10 '' approxmiation @xcite , @xmath11 which assumes an infinitely narrow cme .
however , for the advantageous near - lateral viewing geometries that we have here for cme1 and cme2 , both equations will yield similar results @xcite
.    measurements of the cme trajectory angle @xmath10 are ultimately established by the morphological modeling described in section  4 .
for cme1 , @xmath12 ( from stereo - b ) , and for cme2 , @xmath13 ( from stereo - a )
. based on these values and equation ( 1 ) , figure  6 shows plots of cme distance versus time for cme1 and cme2 . in order to extract velocity profiles from these measurements
, we use a simple three - phase kinematic model that we have used before to fit the kinematic profiles of fast cmes @xcite .
this approach assumes the cme s motion can be approximated by an initial phase of constant acceleration as the cme ramps up to its maximum speed , followed by a phase of constant deceleration as the cme is slowed by its interaction with the ipm , and finally by a phase of constant velocity .
solid lines in figure  6 indicate the best fits to the data with this model .    for cme1 , the leading edge accelerates quickly to a maximum speed of 853 km  s@xmath14 in the cor1 field of view , followed by a deceleration of @xmath15 m  s@xmath16 , until a final velocity of 676 km  s@xmath14 is reached at a distance of 39.1  r@xmath17 from the sun .
the faster cme2 accelerates to 1648 km  s@xmath14 , followed by a deceleration of @xmath18 m  s@xmath16 , reaching a final velocity of 713 km  s@xmath14 at a distance of 55.6  r@xmath17 .
it is interesting that both cmes end up at about the same speed , despite starting out so differently .
the nearly identical asymptotic velocities indicates that the cmes are propagating into solar wind with similar properties .
this is not surprising considering that the cmes are propagating in similar directions , but just far apart not to overlap too much .
in recent papers , we have developed tools for empirically reconstructing the 3-d structure of cmes and their shocks from stereo imagery @xcite . for cme ejecta we generally assume a flux rope ( fr ) geometry , as there exists an extensive literature providing observational support for magnetic frs lying at the heart of many cmes .
this support comes from both in  situ data ( e.g. , * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ) , and imaging data @xcite . in the empirical reconstruction process
, 3-d frs are constructed using a parametrized functional form , which can produce frs of many shapes and orientations , including ones with elliptical rather than circular cross sections .
a similar parametrized prescription is used to generate lobular fronts to estimate the shapes of shock fronts sometimes observed ahead of cmes , as in the case of cme2 @xcite .
using these parametrized descriptions of cmes and their shocks , the idea is to create 3-d density distributions that can then be used to compute synthetic images for comparison with actual images .
this comparison is done in a very comprehensive fashion , considering observations from stereo - a , stereo - b , and soho / lasco ; and considering both images of the cme close to the sun in coronagraphic images , and far from the sun in stereo s heliospheric images .
parameters are adjusted to maximize agreement between the synthetic and actual images .
perfect agreement is not expected , since the model places mass only on the surface of the fr and nothing in its interior , but the goal is for the model to reproduce the basic outline of the cme structure in the images as well as possible .
we use these procedures to reconstruct the 3-d morphology of the two 2011 march 7 cmes , with figure  7 showing the result .
figure  7a shows the cmes at 21:40 ut on march  7 , before the cme2 fr has decelerated very much . by the time of figure  7b
( at 5:10 ut on march  8) cme2 has caught up with cme1 , but it has also decelerated to a speed not much higher than that of cme1 ( see figure  6 ) , so further propagation outwards does not yield much additional motion of the cmes relative to each other .
there is only a modest amount of overlap between the two cmes in the reconstruction , but this region of overlap happens to be directed towards earth ( see figure  2 ) .
the fr of cme1 is a very fat one , with a highly elliptical cross section .
the trajectory of the center of the flux rope is directed @xmath19 north and @xmath20 east ( e.g. , n22e27 ) of the sun - earth line .
the west leg of the fr is tilted @xmath21 above an east - west orientation . for cme2
, the fr is directed towards n35w28 , with a west leg tilted @xmath22 below an east - west orientation .
simple , self - similar expansion is assumed for the fr components of the two cmes . such is not the case for the cme2 shock , however .
the asymmetric and time - dependent behavior of the shock morphology has already been described qualitatively in section 2 . within the framework of our model , the shock
is initially assumed to be a symmetric , lobular front , as shown in figure  7a , with a trajectory @xmath23 degrees from that of the cme2 fr , at n45w58 relative to the sun - earth line .
however , about 5 hours after the start of the cme , while it is in the hi1-a field of view and the cme is decelerating , we allow a discontinuity to develop in the shock front .
the western part of the shock headed towards stereo - a , associated with front f1 in figure  4 , is allowed to expand outwards farther than the eastern part of the shock headed towards earth , associated with front f2 .
we experiment with different degrees of asymmetry , and different longitudinal locations for the discontinuity .
we settle on a shock extent 1.35 times greater for the western part of the shock than for its eastern part , with the discontinuity at a longitude of w48 relative to earth . the resulting shock shape is shown in figures 2 and 7b .
synthetic images computed from the 3-d reconstruction are shown in the left panels of figures 3 and 4 .
these are computed from the model density cubes using full 3-d thomson scattering calculations @xcite , and are displayed in the figures in running difference format , consistent with the real images .
some random noise has been added to the synthetic images for aesthetic purposes , to better match the appearance of the images .
it is worth emphasizing that when converging on the best possible model parameters , _ all _ stereo and lasco images are considered , not just the select few we can show in figures 3 and 4 .    the synthetic hi2-a image in figure  4 shows how the shock discontinuity in the model does yield two distinct fronts ( f1 and f2 ) in the synthetic image .
this resembles the shock s appearance in the real image , although the agreement between the synthetic and real images is far from perfect .
for one thing , the model shock clearly extends too far to the south .
improving matters would presumably require making the shock even more asymmetric than it already is , but there is a limit to the shapes that can be made with the parametrized functional forms we are using for fr and shock shape modeling .
the reconstructed shock shape is not only designed to approximate the shape of the shock in the images , but also to reproduce the arrival time of the shock observed at _ wind _ and stereo - a .
this means we need to know precisely the shock kinematics specifically towards earth and stereo - a , and figure  6 explicitly shows the kinematic profiles of the shock in those directions . towards earth , the shock distance is smaller than the top of the fr because earth and _ wind _ are being hit by the flank of the shock ( see figure  2 ) .
since self - similar expansion applies to this part of cme2 , this means that the shock velocity towards earth is proportionally slower as well . towards stereo
- a , the kinematics are somewhat more complicated because of the shock discontinuity that is allowed to develop while cme2 is decelerating .
figure  6 shows the kinematic profile that results from this discontinuity . mostly because of the factor of 1.35 increase in shock radial extent
, the shock speed at stereo - a is almost 400 km  s@xmath14 faster than at earth .
thus , the shock arrives much earlier at stereo - a than at _ wind _ , as observed .
the top panel of figure  5 shows the density profiles predicted by the model at _ wind _ and stereo - a .
the density peaks associated with the shock agree with the observed arrival time of the shock to within a couple hours .
as mentioned in section  2 , at earth there is geoeffective cme ejecta observed after the shock .
our reconstruction shows a broad density peak after the cme2 shock at _ wind _ , consistent with this .
inspection of figure  2 reveals that this material is not from cme2 but from cme1 .
the reconstruction suggests that after the cme2 shock strikes earth , there is then a glancing blow from the fr component of cme1 . since it is such a grazing incidence , and because the cme2 fr is also not too far away from the sun - earth line , confidence in this conclusion is not high , but we do find it more likely that the cme1 fr accounts for the geoeffective ejecta than the cme2 fr . in this interpretation ,
the density peak seen by _ wind _ at the end of march  10 would be cme1 material that had been shocked by the cme2 shock when cme2 overtakes cme1 shortly after cme2 enters the hi1-a field of view .
figure  1 shows the inferred trajectories of the various components of cme1 and cme2 relative to their source regions .
the cme1 fr is directed somewhat northeast of ar1166 , which is where the flare associated with the cme occurs .
this trajectory is consistent with the euv observations of the event from the solar dynamics observatory ( sdo ) , which show that the euv dimming associated with the eruption is mostly north of ar1166 .
the cme2 fr ends up directed about @xmath24 to the east of its source region , ar1164 .
this eastward deflection is probably caused by the coronal hole to the west of ar1164 .
@xcite provide many examples of cme ejecta that are deflected away from coronal holes , demonstrating that this is a common effect .
in contrast , the shock expands readily into the fast outflow from the coronal hole .
a faster lateral propagation speed through the coronal hole is possibly indicative of higher alfvn speeds in and above the coronal hole , compared to elsewhere .
we have associated the march  10 shock observed by _ wind _ with the cme2 shock , but this interpretation is not definite considering the close proximity of cme1 , and considering that earth is near the eastern edge of the cme2 shock . we can search for support for the cme2 association by using the in  situ data and the hydromagnetic rankine - hugoniot ( rh ) jump conditions ( e.g. , * ? ? ?
* ) to infer the shock normal at _ wind_. the cme2 shock as reconstructed here is centered north of the ecliptic plane , and well to the west of the earth .
thus , the shock normal at earth is expected to be in a southeasterly direction .
this is the prediction that we intend to test .
it is possible to estimate a shock normal solely from the magnetic field and/or velocity measurements using the coplanarity properties of the rh equations @xcite .
however , these techniques do not work well for all possible shock geometries .
they also do not consider all possible constraints on the problem , involving all relevant plasma measurements and the full set of rh equations .
increasingly sophisticated computation techniques have since been developed to more precisely determine shock normal characteristics from single spacecraft measurements @xcite .
we have developed our own computational tools to evaluate the normal of the cme2 shock , which closely resembles the prescription of ( * ? ? ?
* hereafter ks08 ) .
we refer the reader to that paper for a full list of the relevant rh equations .
the jump conditions are generally expressed as six separate equations , but in practice there are eight , since the equations expressing conservation of tangential momentum flux and tangential electric field are vector equations that can each be decomposed into two scalar equations , for vector components parallel and perpendicular to the shock front ( see , e.g. , * ? ? ?
utilizing these eight equations requires pre- and post - shock measurements of eight quantities : density , temperature ( or pressure ) , vector velocity , and vector magnetic field .
figure  8 displays these eight quantities for the cme2 shock , both at stereo - a and at _ wind_. the data are shown with 1 minute time resolution .
time intervals of about 20 minutes duration are used to assess the pre- and post - shock plasma state . for each plasma quantity an initial mean and standard deviation
are computed within the interval .
we then throw out points more than 1.5 standard deviations from the mean to exclude particularly anomalous excursions .
we then recompute the mean and standard deviation , and the resulting values are illustrated with horizontal lines in figure  8 .
the rh equations apply only in the rest frame of the shock , so the velocity and field components measured in figure  8 must be rotated into the shock frame before numbers can be plugged into the rh equations .
this requires the assumption of a shock normal ( @xmath10,@xmath4 ) , and a shock velocity normal to the shock ( @xmath25 ) .
the goal as described by ks08 is to systematically explore the three - dimensional parameter space described by ( @xmath10,@xmath4,@xmath25 ) to assess where the rh conditions are most precisely met .
our approach is similar , but rather than keep @xmath25 as a free parameter , we instead compute it from the radial shock speed measured in the stereo images , @xmath26 .
figure  6b indicates that @xmath27 km  s@xmath14 at stereo - a , and @xmath28 km  s@xmath14 at _
wind_. if ( @xmath10,@xmath4 ) are defined in a spacecraft - centered rtn coordinate system , then @xmath29 thus , in practice our parameter space is just two - dimensional , defined only by the shock normal ( @xmath10,@xmath4 ) .    each of the eight jump conditions , @xmath30 ( i=1 - 8 ) , can be written as @xmath31}-\mbox{[post - shock state ] } = 0.\ ] ] so for a given ( @xmath10,@xmath4 ) normal we can plug the numbers into each equation and see how close each equation is to zero .
however , assessing how well @xmath30 are approximating zero requires uncertainties to be computed for each @xmath30 .
we do this using monte carlo simulations , where the 8 pre - shock and 8 post - shock measurements illustrated in figure  8 are varied in a manner consistent with the displayed mean and standard deviation .
we also vary @xmath26 in the simulations , assuming 5% uncertainties in our measurements of this parameter . for each trial
, we compute a value of @xmath30 and after all trials are complete we then compute the standard deviation of these values , @xmath32 .
we can then compute a @xmath33 number @xcite to quantify how well each assumed shock normal is collectively fitting the rh conditions : @xmath34 ^ 2.\ ] ] the best fit normal is simply where the @xmath33 array has its minimum value of @xmath35 .
if we define @xmath36 , then contour plots of @xmath37 can be used to define confidence intervals for @xmath10 and @xmath4 .
we validate our shock normal computation code using the same synthetic shocks created by ks08 to validate their routine .
the one significant difference between our approach and that of ks08 , besides the treatment of @xmath25 as a measured rather than a free parameter , is that ks08 do not explicitly measure pre- and post - shock plasma parameters ( and uncertainties ) but instead plug sets of measurements for specific pre- and post - shock times into the rh equations , considering all pre- and post - shock times within some time interval to do their version of our monte carlo simulations .
we experimented with a version of our code that performs the calculation in this manner , and we did not find any dramatic difference in results for the cme2 shock studied here .    in figure  9 , we show the @xmath38 contours for the cme2 shock at both stereo - a and _ wind_. following common practice , we draw contours corresponding to probabilities associated with the 1- , 2- , and 3-@xmath39 levels of a normal distribution , which are 68.3% , 95.4% , and 99.7% confidence levels . for stereo - a , the best fit has @xmath40 .
interpreting this number requires knowledge of the degrees of freedom , @xmath41 , which in this case is @xmath42 , i.e. , eight jump conditions minus two free parameters .
thus , the reduced chi - squared , @xmath43 , somewhat below the expectation value of 1 @xcite .
consultation with a chi - squared probability table ( or direct computation of the distribution ) reveals that for @xmath42 , @xmath40 corresponds to a probability value of @xmath44 , meaning there is a 97% chance that the measured parameter uncertainties illustrated in figure  8 can explain the magnitude of @xmath35 .
one consequence of the low @xmath35 value is that the confidence intervals are rather large for stereo - a in figure  9 .
in contrast , for the shock at _ wind _ , @xmath45 , corresponding to @xmath46 and @xmath47 . a 24% chance that the assumed uncertainties can account for the magnitude of @xmath35 is still high enough to consider this a reasonably good fit , although the low value might indicate that the uncertainties in figure  8 may be a little too low .
the confidence contours are naturally much tighter for _ wind _ in figure  9 than for stereo - a .    for stereo - a , we find a shock normal of ( @xmath10,@xmath4)=(@xmath48 , @xmath49 ) , while for _ wind _ we find ( @xmath10,@xmath4)=(@xmath50 , @xmath51 ) .
the quoted 1-@xmath39 uncertainties are estimated not from the @xmath38 contours , but from monte carlo simulations where we vary the measurements illustrated in figure  8 in a manner consistent with the displayed mean and standard deviation , perform the analysis just described , and after many trials the standard deviations of the resulting best fit ( @xmath10,@xmath4 ) values provides the 1-@xmath39 uncertainties in ( @xmath10,@xmath4 ) .
we find that uncertainties estimated in this direct manner are larger than those estimated from the @xmath38 contours , possibly due to nonnormal characteristics of the uncertainties in this particular problem @xcite .    both normals are south - directed ( i.e. , negative @xmath4 ) , which is what we would expect given the northward direction of the cme2 shock . at stereo - a ,
the shock may be oriented somewhat towards the east ( i.e. , negative @xmath10 ) , which is not necessarily expected , but uncertainties in @xmath10 are fairly high for stereo - a .
most importantly , the _ wind _ analysis indicates that the shock there is highly oriented towards the east ( i.e. , negative @xmath10 ) , consistent with expectations for the cme2 shock , and not consistent with a cme1 association .
this provides strong support for the mar .
10 shock at _ wind _ indeed being the cme2 shock .    in passing
, we note that about 10 hours before the cme2 shock hits stereo - a , it encounters the _ venus express _ spacecraft at venus .
the location of venus is shown in figure  2 .
a quick coplanarity analysis @xcite based only on the magnetic field data yields ( @xmath10,@xmath4)=(@xmath52 , @xmath53 ) , reasonably consistent with our measurements at stereo - a , but with an even more eastward orientation , which as mentioned above would not be easy to explain .
sophisticated 3-d mhd modeling codes are becoming increasingly useful for modeling the solar wind and transients within it .
models of this sort include the enlil code currently being used as an operational space weather modeling tool at noaa s space weather prediction center @xcite , and the space weather modeling framework ( swmf ) package @xcite .
we here test whether this sort of modeling can reproduce the general asymmetric shape of the cme2 shock inferred from the empirical reconstruction .
the model of @xcite already demonstrates an ability to produce shock asymmetries of this sort due to solar wind inhomogeneities .
the code we use here is a well established model described most extensively by @xcite , which has been used to confront stereo data before @xcite .
this model combines the hakamada - akasofu - fry ( haf ) code ( version 2 ; * ? ? ?
* ) , which computes the solar wind s evolution out to 18  r@xmath17 , and a fully 3-d mhd code that then carries the simulation out to 285  r@xmath17 @xcite .
the inner boundary conditions for the haf part of the code are derived from solar magnetograms and resulting source surface maps using the wang - sheeley - arge model @xcite .
this establishes the ambient solar wind into which cme2 is launched . in the model a cme front is produced by introducing a velocity pulse at the inner boundary .    for various reasons , the haf code can not properly model the lateral propagation of a cme disturbance into an adjacent coronal hole . for one thing ,
the haf code is essentially a 1-d radial propagation model , rather than a 3-d code . for another , the piston used to initiate a fast cme like cme2 is a very large one , which means that part of the velocity pulse extends into the coronal hole right from the start , even if its center is outside the hole .
truly modeling the propagation of a cme front into a coronal hole would probably require a full 3-d mhd model with a lower inner boundary than ours , a smaller piston , and with a higher spatial resolution than we are using .
however , the existing model described above should still be able to study shock asymmetries induced by radial propagation into an inhomogeneous medium .
since the early lateral propagation effects can not be modeled properly , we place the piston at the empirically inferred center of the shock ( n45w58 ) right from the start rather than at the fr location ( n35w28 ) , where the driver is really located . as in past models ( e.g. , * ? ? ?
* ; * ? ? ?
* ) , the velocity pulse is gaussian - shaped , with the velocity of the piston decreasing with angular distance from piston - center .
the width of the piston is described by the gaussian @xmath39 parameter @xcite , which in this case is @xmath54 .
temporally , the velocity pulse consists of a 140 minute exponential rise in velocity up to a maximum speed of 1550 km  s@xmath14 at piston - center , followed by a 140 minute fall back to the original ambient solar wind speed .
this leads to a compression wave that arrives at both stereo - a and earth near cme2 s actual observed time of arrival at those locations .
figure  10 shows the shape of the modeled disturbance as it approaches 1  au . although the model does not precisely reproduce the empirically inferred shock shape in figure  2 , at least qualitatively , the cme front exhibits the same sort of asymmetry inferred for the cme2 shock , being much farther from the sun west of the piston longitude , where fast solar wind predominates , compared to east of the piston location , where slow wind predominates .
this is encouraging for ongoing attempts to explore how these kinds of mhd models can be used to improve cme arrival time forecasts at 1  au .
we have empirically reconstructed the morphology of two cmes from 2011  march  7 , denoted cme1 and cme2 , with a particular focus on the shape of the shock produced by the faster cme2 .
the location of cme2 in between earth and stereo - a , with a shock broad enough to hit both , allows us to bring an extensive collection of observations to bear on assessing the characteristics of the event , involving both imaging and in  situ data .
our findings are summarized as follows :    1 .
: :    a coronal hole to the west of cme2 s source location has noticeable    effects on both the flux rope driver of the cme , which is deflected to    the east away from the hole , and the shock front , which in contrast to    the flux rope expands more readily over and above the coronal hole .
visual evidence for the shock asymmetry induced by the presence of the    coronal hole is apparent in both coronagraphic and heliospheric images    of the cme shock .
:    in  situ data also provide evidence for cme2 shock asymmetries induced    by the coronal hole , as the shock is observed to arrive at stereo - a    over a day before being observed by _ wind _ near earth .
we use the    in  situ measurements and the rankine - hugoniot shock jump conditions to    measure the shock normals at stereo - a and _ wind_. the orientations of    the shock normals in both locations are in reasonably good agreement    with what is expected on the basis of the shock morphology inferred    from the stereo images . 3 . : :    the asymmetries inferred for the cme2 shock are qualitatively    reproduced by an mhd model of the cme , which clearly shows the shock    expanding radially more rapidly in regions of high speed wind .
4 . : :    after the cme2 shock hits _ wind _ , cme ejecta is also observed that    produces a modest geomagnetic storm at earth .
based on our empirical    reconstruction , we tentatively attribute this material not to cme2 but    to cme1 , which would imply that this is cme1 ejecta that was shocked    by the cme2 shock close to the sun .
this work has been supported by nasa award nnh10an83i to the naval research laboratory .
the stereo / secchi data are produced by a consortium of nrl ( us ) , lmsal ( us ) , nasa / gsfc ( us ) , ral ( uk ) , ubham ( uk ) , mps ( germany ) , csl ( belgium ) , iota ( france ) , and ias ( france ) .
in addition to funding by nasa , nrl also received support from the usaf space test program and onr .
this work has also made use of data provided by the stereo plastic and impact teams , supported by nasa contracts nas5 - 00132 and nas5 - 00133 .
the hakamada - akasofu - fry solar wind model version 2 ( hafv2 ) was provided to nrl / ssd by a software license from exploration physics international , inc .
( expi ) .
abraham - schrauner , b. 1972 , j.  geophys .
, 77 , 736 acua , m. h. , curtis , d. , scheifele , j. l. , russell , c. t. , schroeder , p. , szabo , a. , & luhmann , j. g. 2008 , space sci .
rev . , 136 , 203 arge , c. n. , & pizzo , v. 2000 , j.  geophys
.  res . , 105 , 10465 billings , d. e. 1966 .
a guide to the solar corona ( new york : academic press ) bevington , p. r. , & robinson , d. k. 1992 , data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences ( new york : mcgraw - hill ) bothmer , v. , & schwenn , r. 1998 , ann .
geophys . , 16 , 1 brueckner , g. e , et al .
1995 , sol .
, 162 , 357 burlaga , l. f. 1988 , j.  geophys .
res . , 93 , 7217 chen , j. , et al . 1997 , apj , 490 , l191 colburn , d. s. , & sonett , c. p. 1966 , space sci .
, 5 , 439 eyles , c. j. , et al .
2009 , sol .
, 254 , 387 fry , c. d. , sun , w. , deehr , c. s. , dryer , m. , smith , z. , akasofu , s. -i . , tokumaru , m. , & kojima , m. 2001 , j.  geophys .
, 106 , 20985 galvin , a. b. , et al .
2008 , space sci .
, 136 , 437 gibson , s. e. , & low , b. c. 1998 , apj , 493 , 460 gopalswamy , n. , mkel , p. , xie , h. , akiyama , s. , & yashiro , s. 2009 , j.  geophys .
res . , 114 , a00a22 hakamada , k. , & akasofu , s. -i .
1982 , space sci .
, 31 , 3 han , s. m. , wu , s. t. , & dryer , m. 1988 , comput .
fluids , 16 , 81 howard , r. a , et al . 2008 , space sci .  rev . , 136 , 67 kahler , s. w. , & webb , d. f. 2007 , j.  geophys .  res . , 112 , a09103 kaiser , m. l. , kucera , t. a. , davila , j. m. , st .
cyr , o. c. , guhathakurta , m. , & christian , e. 2008 , space sci .
, 136 , 5 koval , a. , & szabo , a. 2008 , j.  geophys .  res . , 113 , a10110 ( ks08 ) krall , j. 2007 , apj , 657 , 559 lepping , r. p. , & argentiero , p. d. 1971 , j.  geophys .
, 76 , 4349 lepping , r. p. , jones , j. a. , & burlaga , l. f. 1990 , j.  geophys .
, 95 , 11957 lugaz , n. , roussev , i. i. , & gombosi , t. i. 2011 , adv .
space  res . , 48 , 292 lugaz , n. , vourlidas , a. , & roussev , i. i. 2009 , ann .
geophys . , 27 , 3479 luhmann , j. g. , et al .
2008 , space sci .
, 136 , 117 manchester , w. b. , gombosi , t. i. , roussev , i. , de zeeuw , d. l. , sokolov , i. v. , powell , k. g. , tth , g , & opher , m. 2004 , j.  geophys .  res . , 109 , a01102 marubashi , k. 1986 , adv .
space  res . ,
6 , 335 odstrcil , d. , & pizzo , v. j. 1999 , j.  geophys .
res . , 104 , 28225 odstrcil , d. , & pizzo , v. j. 2009 , sol .
phys . , 259 , 297 press , w. h. , flannery , b. p. , teukolsky , s. a. , & vetterling , w. t. 1989 , numerical recipes ( cambridge : cambridge university press ) riley , p. , gosling , j. t. , & pizzo , v. j. 1997 , j.  geophys .
res . , 102 , 14677 sheeley , n. r. , jr . , et al
. 2008 , apj , 675 , 853 shu , f. s. 1992 , the physics of astrophysics , vol .  2 : gas dynamics ( mill valley : university science books ) szabo , a. 1994 , j.  geophys .  res . , 99 , 14737 thernisien , a. f. r. , howard , r. a. , & vourlidas , a. 2006 , apj , 652 , 763 tth , g. , et al .
2005 , j.  geophys .
res . , 110 , a011126 vias , a. f. , & scudder , j. d. 1986 , j.  geophys .
res . , 91 , 39 wang , y. -m . , & sheeley , n. r. , jr . 1990 , apj , 355 , 726 wood , b. e. , & howard , r. a. 2009 , apj , 702 , 901 wood , b. e. , howard , r. a. , & socker , d. g. 2010 , apj , 715 , 1524 wood , b. e. , wu , c. -c . , howard , r. a. , socker , d. g. , & rouillard , a. p. 2011
, apj , 729 , 70 wu , c. -c . , dryer , m. , wu , s. t. , wood , b. e. , fry , c. d. , liou , k. , & plunkett , s. 2011 , j.  geophys .
res . , 116 , a12103 wu , c. -c . , fry , c. d. , dryer , m. , wu , s. t. , thompson , b. , liou , k. , & feng , x. s. 2007a , adv .
space  res . , 40 , 1827 wu , c. -c . , fry , c. d. , wu , s. t. , dryer , m. , & liou , k. 2007b , j.  geophys .
res . , 112 , a09104 wu , s. t. , andrews , m. d. , & plunkett , s. p. 2001 , space sci .  rev . , 95 , 191