Results for “sharp features” — Page 14

DOE OSTI2023

Emergent Quantum Magnetism and Cryogenic Spin-Memory in Twisted Bilayer Graphene

Recently developed techniques for assembling moiré heterostructures have enabled unprecedented control of the interlayer interactions within the heterostructure, allowing for the realization of strongly correlated electronic states. The experimentally realized states, to date, include a variety of topological states, superconductivity, and strange metal behavior. However, the phenomenology varies significantly from sample to sample. Here we will present microscopy techniques for further characterization of both the progenitor exfoliated materials and the composite moiré heterostructure. The application of these techniques has allowed for an unprecidented degree of characterization in ambient conditions. Additionally we will explore the use of resistively detected electron spin resonance (ESR) as a novel probe for spin order in moirés. While our results do not show clearly dispersive features that would unambiguously evince spin excitations within the sample, the technique is still promising.

75 CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND↗

DOE OSTI2015

Comment on "Radiative forcings for 28 potential Archean greenhouse gases" by Byrne and Goldblatt (2014)

In the recent article by Byrne and Goldblatt, "Radiative forcing for 28 potential Archean greenhouse gases", Clim. Past. 10, 1779–1801 (2014), the authors employ the HITRAN2012 spectroscopic database to evaluate the radiative forcing of 28 Archean gases. As part of the evaluation of the status of the spectroscopy of these gases in the selected spectral region (50–1800 cm -1 ), the cross sections generated from the HITRAN line-by-line parameters were compared with those of the PNNL database of experimental cross sections recorded at moderate resolution. The authors claimed that for NO 2 , HNO 3 , H 2 CO, H 2 O 2 , HCOOH, C 2 H 4 , CH 3 OH and CH 3 Br there exist large or sometimes severe disagreements between the databases. In this work we show that for only three of these eight gases a modest discrepancy does exist between the two databases and we explain the origin of the differences. For the other five gases, the disagreements are not nearly at the scale suggested by the authors, while we explain some of the differences that do exist. In summary, the agreement between the HITRAN and PNNL databases is very good, although not perfect. Typically differences do not exceed 10 %, provided that HITRAN data exist for the bands/wavelengths of interest. It appears that a molecule-dependent combination of errors has affected the conclusions of the authors. In at least one case it appears that they did not take the correct file from PNNL (N 2 O 4 (dimer)+ NO 2 was used in place of the monomer). Finally, cross sections of HO 2 from HITRAN (which do not have a PNNL counterpart) were not calculated correctly in BG, while in the case of HF misleading discussion was presented there based on the confusion by foreign or noise features in the experimental PNNL spectra.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Generation of multiple attosecond sub-bursts in femtosecond pulse trains by long-wavelength driving lasers

High-order harmonics generated by a long intense femtosecond laser are known experimentally to create attosecond pulse trains (APTs). In the time domain, an APT consists of a sequence of sharp attosecond bursts that are equally separated by each half optical cycle. Here, in this work, we show that such well-known features can be modified when a longer wavelength driving laser is used. From our simulations, we show that multiple shorter attosecond sub-bursts exist in the femtosecond pulse train within each half optical cycle and the duration of each sub-burst scales approximately as $λ^{–2}_0$ with the driving laser wavelength λ 0 . We show that such sub-bursts can be found using quantitative rescattering model for harmonics generated from a single atom, and their origin is due to the interference of the quantum orbits from first two returns of the recombining electron. We further show that such sub-bursts can be phase matched under proper laser focusing condition and the position of the gas cell, thus, such new features should be observable experimentally.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

DOE OSTI2018

Relating the long-term and short-term vertical deformation across a transect of the forearc in the central Mexican subduction zone

Earthquake-cycle deformation, which includes earthquake ruptures, interseismic strain, and transient slow slip events, spans spatial scales ranging from fractions of a meter to thousands of kilometers. Similarly, temporal scales range from seconds during an earthquake rupture to thousands of years of strain accumulation between earthquakes. We discuss results regarding the vertical crustal deformation associated with both slow and rapid crustal deformation across a transect of the central Mexican subduction forearc in the Guerrero seismic gap, where the Cocos plate underthrusts the North America plate. This sector of the subduction zone is characterized by a flat-slab geometry with zones of sharp bending-unbending of the slab, irregularly distributed seismicity, and exceptionally large slow slip events. We used the river network, topography, geomorphic features, and morphometry on a transect across the forearc to assess Quaternary crustal deformation. The Papagayo drainage network shows that the forearc has been uplifted since the late Cenozoic (~25 Ma), and that rates of uplift increased since the beginning of the Holocene. Uplift is not homogeneous but shows a trend of increase away from the coast. This vertical deformation is strongly influenced by subduction processes. Thus, the Papagayo River network is strongly controlled by Holocene earthquake cycle processes. This is particularly true for the southern section of the drainage basin, where E-W-striking left-lateral strike-slip faults with a vertical component offset the course of the main river. These faults are accommodating part of the oblique plate convergence at the Mexican subduction zone. We measured the height of a series of terraces and dated quartz extracts by optically stimulated luminescence, and we calculated long-term rates of uplift ranging from 0.5 to 4.9 mm/yr. We discuss associations of forearc topography, faults, and long-term crustal deformation with the Cocos slab geometry, distribution of slow slip events, and earthquake-cycle deformation.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Spin and charge excitations in the correlated multiband metal Ca 3 Ru 2 O 7

We use Ru $L_3$-edge resonant inelastic x-ray scattering to study the full range of excitations in Ca 3 Ru 2 O 7 from meV-scale magnetic dynamics through to the eV-scale interband transitions. This bilayer 4d-electron correlated metal expresses a rich phase diagram, displaying long-range magnetic order below 56 K followed by a concomitant structural, magnetic, and electronic transition at 48 K. In the low-temperature phase, we observe a magnetic excitation with a bandwidth of ~30 meV and a gap of ~8 meV at the zone center, in excellent agreement with inelastic neutron scattering data. The dispersion can be modeled using a Heisenberg Hamiltonian for a bilayer S = 1 system with single-ion anisotropy terms. At a higher energy loss, dd-type excitations show heavy damping in the presence of itinerant electrons, giving rise to a fluorescencelike signal appearing between the $t_{2g}$ and $e_g$ bands. At the same time, we observe a resonance originating from localized $t_{2g}$ excitations, in analogy to the structurally related Mott insulator Ca 2 RuO 4 . But whereas Ca 2 RuO 4 shows sharp separate spin-orbit excitations and Hund’s-rule driven spin-state transitions, here we identify only a single broad asymmetric feature. These results indicate that local intraionic interactions underlie the correlated physics in Ca 3 Ru 2 O 7 , even as the excitations become strongly mixed in the presence of itinerant electrons.

75 CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND↗

DOE OSTI2017

Inflationary features and shifts in cosmological parameters from Planck 2015 data

We explore the relationship between features in the Planck 2015 temperature and polarization data, shifts in the cosmological parameters, and features from inflation. Residuals in the temperature data at low multipole &ell;, which are responsible for the high H 0 ≈ 70 km s –1 Mpc –1 and low σ 8 $Ω^{1/2}_{m}$ values from &ell; < 1000 in power-law ΛCDM models, are better fit to inflationary features with a 1.9σ preference for running of the running of the tilt or a stronger 99% CL local significance preference for a sharp drop in power around k = 0.004 Mpc –1 in generalized slow roll and a lower H 0 ≈ 67km s –1 Mpc –1 . The same in-phase acoustic residuals at &ell; >1000 that drive the global H 0 constraints and appear as a lensing anomaly also favor running parameters which allow even lower H 0 , but not once lensing reconstruction is considered. Polarization spectra are intrinsically highly sensitive to these parameter shifts, and even more so in the Planck 2015 TE data due to an outlier at &ell; ≈ 165,which disfavors the best fit H 0 ΛCDM solution by more than 2σ, and high H 0 value at almost 3σ. Current polarization data also slightly enhance the significance of a sharp suppression of large-scale power but leave room for large improvements in the future with cosmic variance limited E-mode measurements.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

DOE OSTI2021

X-ray phase contrast and absorption imaging for the quantification of transient cavitation in high-speed nozzle flows

In this work, high-flux synchrotron radiation has been employed in a time-resolved manner to characterise the distinct topology features and dynamics of different cavitation regimes arising in a throttle orifice with an abrupt flow-entry contraction. Radiographs obtained though both X-ray phase- contrast and absorption imaging have been captured at 67,890 frames per second. The flow lied in the turbulent regime (Re=35,500), while moderate (CN=2.0) to well-established (CN=6.0) cavitation conditions were examined encompassing the cloud and vortical cavitation regimes with pertinent transient features, such as cloud-cavity shedding. X-ray Phase-Contrast Imaging (XPCI), exploiting the shift in the X-ray wave phase during interactions with matter, offers sharp-refractive index gradients in the interface region. Hence, it is suitable for capturing fine morphological fluctuations of transient cavitation structures. Nevertheless, the technique cannot provide information on the quantity of vapour within the orifice. Such data have been obtained utilising absorption imaging, where beam attenuation is not associated with scattering and refraction events, and hence can be explicitly correlated with the projected vapour thickness in line-of-sight measurements. A combination of the two methods is proposed, as it has been found is capable of quantifying the vapour content arising in the complex nozzle flow, while also faithfully illustrating the dynamics of the highly-transient cavitation features.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2025

Cosmological quasiparticles and the cosmological collider

The interplay between cosmology and strongly coupled dynamics can yield transient spectral features that vanish at late times, but which may leave behind phenomenological signatures in the spectrum of primordial fluctuations. Of particular interest are strongly coupled extensions of the standard model featuring approximate conformal invariance. In flat space, the spectral density for a scalar operator in a conformal field theory is characterized by a continuum with scaling law governed by the dimension of the operator, and is otherwise featureless. Anti–de Sitter/conformal field theory arguments suggest that for large 𝑁, in an inflationary background with Hubble rate 𝐻, this continuum is gapped. We demonstrate that there can be additional peak structures that become sharp and particlelike at phenomenologically interesting regions in parameter space, and we estimate their contribution to cosmological observables. We find phenomena that are potentially observable in future experiments that are unique to these models, including displaced oscillatory features in the squeezed limit of the bispectrum. These particles can be either fundamental, and localized to a UV brane, or composite at the Hubble scale, 𝐻, and bound to a horizon in the bulk of the 5D geometry. We comment on how stabilization of conformal symmetry breaking vacua can be correlated with these spectral features and their phenomenology.

conformal field theory↗

DOE OSTI2014

Sharp inflaton potentials and bi-spectra: effects of smoothening the discontinuity

Sharp shapes in the inflaton potentials often lead to short departures from slow roll which, in turn, result in deviations from scale invariance in the scalar power spectrum. Typically, in such situations, the scalar power spectrum exhibits a burst of features associated with modes that leave the Hubble radius either immediately before or during the epoch of fast roll. Moreover, one also finds that the power spectrum turns scale invariant at smaller scales corresponding to modes that leave the Hubble radius at later stages, when slow roll has been restored. In other words, the imprints of brief departures from slow roll, arising out of sharp shapes in the inflaton potential, are usually of a finite width in the scalar power spectrum. Intuitively, one may imagine that the scalar bi-spectrum too may exhibit a similar behavior, i.e. a restoration of scale invariance at small scales, when slow roll has been reestablished. However, in the case of the Starobinsky model (viz. the model described by a linear inflaton potential with a sudden change in its slope) involving the canonical scalar field, it has been found that, a rather sharp, though short, departure from slow roll can leave a lasting and significant imprint on the bi-spectrum. The bi-spectrum in this case is found to grow linearly with the wavenumber at small scales, a behavior which is clearly unphysical. In this work, we study the effects of smoothening the discontinuity in the Starobinsky model on the scalar bi-spectrum. Focusing on the equilateral limit, we analytically show that, for smoother potentials, the bi-spectrum indeed turns scale invariant at suitably large wavenumbers. We also confirm the analytical results numerically using our newly developed code BINGO. We conclude with a few comments on certain related points.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Bragg glass signatures in Pd x ErTe 3 with X-ray diffraction temperature clustering

The Bragg glass phase is a nearly perfect crystal with glassy features predicted to occur in vortex lattices and charge-density-wave systems in the presence of disorder. Detecting it has been challenging, despite its sharp theoretical definition in terms of diverging correlation lengths. Here we present bulk probe evidence supporting a Bragg glass phase in the systematically disordered charge-density-wave material of Pd x ErTe 3 . We do this by using comprehensive X-ray data and a machine-learning-based analysis tool called X-ray diffraction temperature clustering (X-TEC). We establish a diverging correlation length in samples with moderate intercalation over a wide temperature range. To enable this analysis, we introduced a high-throughput measure of inverse correlation length that we call peak spread. The detection of Bragg glass order and the resulting phase diagram advance our understanding of the complex interplay between disorder and fluctuations. Moreover, the use of our analysis technique to target fluctuations through a high-throughput measure of peak spread can revolutionize the study of fluctuations in scattering experiments.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2019

Assessing Adaptive Mesh Refinement (AMR) in a Forced Shallow-Water Model with Moisture

Two forced shallow-water flow scenarios are explored in a 2D fourth-order finite-volume dynamical core with adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) to investigate AMR’s ability to track and resolve complex evolving features. Traditional shallow-water test cases are mainly characterized by large-scale smooth flows that do not effectively test the multiscale abilities of variable-resolution and AMR models to resolve sharp gradients and small-scale flow filaments. Therefore, adding forcing mechanisms to the shallow-water system to model key atmospheric processes adds complexity and creates small-scale phenomena. These can serve as foci for dynamic grid refinement while remaining simple enough to study the numerical design of a model’s dynamical core. The first shallow-water flow scenario represents a strengthening, tropical cyclone–like, vortex that is driven by a Betts–Miller-like convection scheme. The second shallow-water test is built upon a barotropically unstable jet with an added Kessler-like warm rain scheme that leads to precipitating frontal zones. The key feature of both tests is that there is significant sensitivity to the model grid while converging (structurally) at high resolution. Both test cases are investigated for a series of uniform resolutions and a variety of AMR tagging criteria. The AMR simulations demonstrate that grid refinement can resolve local features without requiring global high-resolution meshes. However, the results are sensitive to the refinement criteria. Criteria that trigger refinement early in a simulation reproduce the uniform-resolution reference solutions most reliably. Finally, in contrast, AMR criteria that delay refinement for several days require careful tuning of the AMR thresholds to improve results compared with uniform-resolution simulations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-00: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG # 5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Spatially uniform resistance switching of low current, high endurance titanium–niobium-oxide memristors

Here we analyzed micrometer-scale titanium-niobium-oxide prototype memristors, which exhibited low write-power (< 3 μW) and energy (< 200 fJ per bit per μm 2 ), low read-power (~nW), and high endurance ( > millions of cycles). To understand their physico-chemical operating mechanisms, we performed in operando synchrotron X-ray transmission nanoscale spectromicroscopy using an ultra-sensitive time-multiplexed technique. We observed only spatially uniform material changes during cell operation, in sharp contrast to the frequently detected formation of a localized conduction channel in transition-metal-oxide memristors. We also associated the response of assigned spectral features distinctly to non-volatile storage (resistance change) and writing of information (application of voltage and Joule heating). Lastly, these results provide critical insights into high-performance memristors that will aid in device design, scaling and predictive circuit-modeling, all of which are essential for the widespread deployment of successful memristor applications.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2022

Toward an integrated platform for characterizing laser-driven, isochorically heated plasmas with 1 µm spatial resolution

Warm dense matter is a region of phase space that is of high interest to multiple scientific communities ranging from astrophysics to inertial confinement fusion. Further understanding of the conditions and properties of this complex state of matter necessitates experimental benchmarking of the current theoretical models. We discuss the development of an x-ray radiography platform designed to measure warm dense matter transport properties at large laser facilities such as the OMEGA Laser Facility. Our platform, Fresnel Diffractive Radiography, allows for high spatial resolution imaging of isochorically heated targets, resulting in notable diffractive effects at sharp density gradients that are influenced by transport properties such as thermal conductivity. We discuss initial results, highlighting the capabilities of the platform in measuring diffractive features with micron-level spatial resolution.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗