SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “error quantification”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

461 records · Page 26

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2020

Effects of cluster expansion on the locations of phase transition boundary as a first step to quantify uncertainty in first principles statistical mechanics framework

Predicting phase diagrams from first principle calculations eliminates the need of tedious experimental trials and errors. Fully automating first principle phase diagram calculations without any sort of human intervention has been a long daunting task and troubling scientific communities for decades. This grand problem remains not fully resolved, largely due to the vastly high-dimensional parameter space associated with density functional theory, cluster expansion, lattice Monte Carlo, and the substantial uncertainty propagating through a set of complex simulations. As a first step to tackle this grand problem, we reported a first demonstration of how sensitive phase boundary locations can be to various cluster expansion fittings and input DFT training data. To the best knowledge of the authors, this study reported the first ever attempt to quantify uncertainty in first principles statistical mechanics framework. In addition, a semi-automated phase transition detection algorithm has been devised in this paper to deal with the associated statistical errors and uncertainties from Monte Carlo method and its predecessor DFT calculations and cluster expansions. This algorithm has been applied in a classical cluster expansion Mg-Cd binary alloy system to detect phase transitions at various locations of phase diagram using different cluster expansions to demonstrate its predictive power and quantify uncertainties. The results suggested that using Chebyshev basis function shifted the transition locations toward the dilute solid solution phase and expanded the phase stability of concentrated ordered phases to wider composition range. The addition of perturbed defect configurations into training data set lowered the order-disorder transition temperature to be away from true transition temperature, suggesting the transition nature is indeed configurational disorder dominated rather than defect assisted. Finally, we found that the weighting has negligible effect on the transition locations, except for the case of using Chebyshev basis function to fit all non-weighted configurations that can be susceptible to Monte Carlo sampling hysteresis.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2024

Role of the likelihood for elastic scattering uncertainty quantification

In the last decade, uncertainty quantification (UQ) for optical model potentials (OMPs) has become a focal point for nuclear reaction theory, and several competing approaches for OMP UQ have recently been developed. Here, we clarify recent efforts to compare frequentist and Bayesian approaches in the context of OMP UQ [G. B. King et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 232502 (2019)]. We replicate a portion of that OMP UQ study but use independent statistical tools. Specifically, we compare two methods for OMP parameter inference from elastic scattering data: the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm for χ 2 minimization on one hand and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling on the other. Separately, we assess the common practice of using a renormalized likelihood (χ 2 /N), N being the number of data points, instead of the canonical weighted-least-squares likelihood (χ 2 ), as a way of accounting for unknown data correlations. Here, we show that for a generic linear model and for a five-parameter OMP analysis, frequentist and uniform-prior Bayesian approaches recover the same optimum and uncertainty estimates—not systematically larger uncertainties for the Bayesian approach, as was concluded in G. B. King et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 232502 (2019). Further, we show that if an additional, near-degenerate parameter is introduced into the same OMP analysis such that the parameter posterior becomes non-Gaussian, then covariance-based estimates of uncertainty become unreliable. Finally, we show that regardless of optimization approach, if χ 2 /N is used for the likelihood, the resulting parametric uncertainties increase by $\sqrt{N}$, and that this is responsible for the conclusions drawn in the revisited study. Based on our replication results, we find that a fortuitous cancellation of unreported errors and the renormalization factor can lead to improvement in empirical coverages, as was the case in the original comparative study. We emphasize that developing and applying a realistic likelihood function is an essential task in a UQ analysis, and that several recent UQ studies that employed a renormalized likelihood (i.e., including a 1/N factor) may have yielded unrealistically large uncertainties for elastic-scattering observables. If the parameter posterior deviates from multivariate-normal, a sampling-based approach like MCMC has a clear advantage over methods that assume the Laplace approximation holds. We note that empirical coverage can serve as an important internal check for the analyst whose model or data may have additional, unaccounted-for uncertainties.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Nuclear properties with semilocal momentum-space regularized chiral interactions beyond N 2 LO

We present a comprehensive investigation of few-nucleon systems as well as light and medium-mass nuclei up to A = 48 using the current Low Energy Nuclear Physics International Collaboration two-nucleon interactions in combination with the third-order (N 2 LO) three-nucleon forces. To address the systematic overbinding of nuclei starting from A ≈ 10 found in our earlier study utilizing the N 2 LO two- and three-nucleon forces, we take into account higher-order corrections to the two-nucleon potentials up through fifth order in chiral effective field theory. Here, the resulting Hamiltonian can be completely determined using the A = 3 binding energies and selected nucleon-deuteron cross sections as input. It is then shown to predict other nucleon-deuteron scattering observables and spectra of light p-shell nuclei, for which a detailed correlated truncation error analysis is performed, in agreement with experimental data. Moreover, the predicted ground state energies of nuclei in the oxygen isotopic chain from 14 O to 26 O as well as 40 Ca and 48 Ca show a remarkably good agreement with experimental values, given that the Hamiltonian is fixed completely from the A ≤ 3 data, once the fourth-order (N 3 LO) corrections to the two-nucleon interactions are taken into account. On the other hand, the charge radii are found to be underpredicted by ≈10% for the oxygen isotopes and by almost 20% for 40 Ca and 48 Ca.

20 ≤ A ≤ 38↗

DOE OSTI2025

Direct sensitivity analysis on the parameterization of crystal plasticity models

Various methods for calibrating crystal plasticity finite element (CPFE) models lead to non-unique input parameter values, which subsequently introduce uncertainty in the predicted mechanical response. Sensitivity analysis (SA) conducted on crystal plasticity models is used to identify how variability in these parameters contribute to output uncertainty. Traditional SA on CPFE parameters uses simplified surrogate models to save computational time. However, the accuracy of the surrogate models depends on the quantity of training data used, and any modeling error can propagate into the SA results, potentially affecting their reliability. In this work, the elementary effects test (EET) method, a global SA technique using direct CPFE simulations was employed, and the results obtained were compared with the First Order Second Moment (FOSM) method. ExaConstit, an open-source GPU-enabled CPFE code, was used to perform the simulations and direct SA. The EET method was accurately able to capture the non-linear effects of all the input parameters on the output and is a valuable approach for reliably attributing parameter sensitivities in CPFE models. Based on the results, efficient strategies to perform future parameter calibration and SA are discussed. Additionally, the SA trends observed in different single crystal orientations closely mirrored the activity of the slip systems.

Elementary Effects Test↗

DOE OSTI2024

Quantifying Streambed Grain Size, Uncertainty, and Hydrobiogeochemical Parameters Using Machine Learning Model YOLO

Abstract Streambed grain sizes control river hydro‐biogeochemical (HBGC) processes and functions. However, measuring their quantities, distributions, and uncertainties is challenging due to the diversity and heterogeneity of natural streams. This work presents a photo‐driven, artificial intelligence (AI)‐enabled, and theory‐based workflow for extracting the quantities, distributions, and uncertainties of streambed grain sizes from photos. Specifically, we first trained You Only Look Once, an object detection AI, using 11,977 grain labels from 36 photos collected from nine different stream environments. We demonstrated its accuracy with a coefficient of determination of 0.98, a Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency of 0.98, and a mean absolute relative error of 6.65% in predicting the median grain size of 20 ground‐truth photos representing nine typical stream environments. The AI is then used to extract the grain size distributions and determine their characteristic grain sizes, including the 10th, 50th, 60th, and 84th percentiles, for 1,999 photos taken at 66 sites within a watershed in the Northwest US. The results indicate that the 10th, median, 60th, and 84th percentiles of the grain sizes follow log‐normal distributions, with most likely values of 2.49, 6.62, 7.68, and 10.78 cm, respectively. The average uncertainties associated with these values are 9.70%, 7.33%, 9.27%, and 11.11%, respectively. These data allow for the computation of the quantities, distributions, and uncertainties of streambed HBGC parameters, including Manning's coefficient, Darcy‐Weisbach friction factor, top layer interstitial velocity magnitude, and nitrate uptake velocity. Additionally, major sources of uncertainty in grain sizes and their impact on HBGC parameters are examined.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mars Sample Return, Sample Retrieval Lander, Reaction Control System Jet Interaction Supersonic Wind Tunnel Test Overview with CFD Predictions

NASA's Mars Sample Return campaign will be launching several missions over the next decade that will work together to return rock samples from Mars back to Earth. The Sample Retrieval Lander (SRL) will deliver the Mars Ascent Vehicle and fetch rover to the surface of Mars in 2006. Rock samples collected by the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover, landing in early 2021, will be loaded on the the ascent vehicle to be launched into Mars orbit for retrieval by yet another spacecraft. The Sample Retrieval Lander will be a blunt entry capsule similar to past Mars entry vehicles like Mars Science Laboratory and Viking. The vehicle will fly a guided entry, using a small lift vector produced by a non-zero trim angle of attack to eliminate downrange and crossrange position errors at the point of parachute deploy. This energy and heading management is achieved with a reaction control system (RCS) that directs the bank angle of the vehicle and also minimizes unwanted capsule dynamics. The reaction control system and control design is based on the Mars Science Laboratory and Mars 2020 RCS systems. However, due to packaging constraints, the backshell of this new entry vehicle has a different geometry than those earlier designs. To certify the RCS system for flight the project must characterize the jet plume interactions with the capsule backshell that could impair or significantly augment the RCS control authority. This characterization will be done through a combination of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis and wind tunnel test. Two candidate arrangements of the RCS jets have been identified for the SRL vehicle and are currently under evaluation before final selection. The aero/RCS plume interactions of these candidate configurations have been measured in a supersonic wind tunnel test in NASA Langley's Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel. The test was conducted in the fall of 2020 and data is currently being reduced. An overview of the candidate RCS configurations are presented here with an overview of the wind tunnel model design, jet scaling and scaled nozzle design, and the test matrix. Preliminary CFD runs are presented with an assessment of the predicted plumes and their interaction with the wake flow of the vehicle. The predicted effects of the model sting is provided as well. This high fidelity wind tunnel test is being conducted much earlier in the SRL project than would normally be done. The test was funded as part of a CFD evaluation task funded by NASA's Aerosciences Evaluation and Test Capabilities Project. The objective of the evaluation task was to compare the ability of CFD to predict complex flows with data that can be measured in the Langley Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel. RCS Jet interactions were selected as a type of complex flow that is important to NASA missions. In addition to providing useful data to the SRL project, there was added emphasis on quantifying the accuracy of the CFD predictions and wind tunnel test data. An overview of the uncertainty quantification methodologies for computational and experimental portions of this test is presented.

blunt body↗

NASA NTRS2015

Construction of Polarimetric Radar-Based Reference Rain Maps for the Iowa Flood Studies Campaign

The Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Mission Iowa Flood Studies (IFloodS) campaign was conducted in central and northeastern Iowa during the months of April-June, 2013. Specific science objectives for IFloodS included quantification of uncertainties in satellite and ground-based estimates of precipitation, 4-D characterization of precipitation physical processes and associated parameters (e.g., size distributions, water contents, types, structure etc.), assessment of the impact of precipitation estimation uncertainty and physical processes on hydrologic predictive skill, and refinement of field observations and data analysis approaches as they pertain to future GPM integrated hydrologic validation and related field studies. In addition to field campaign archival of raw and processed satellite data (including precipitation products), key ground-based platforms such as the NASA NPOL S-band and D3R Ka/Ku-band dual-polarimetric radars, University of Iowa X-band dual-polarimetric radars, a large network of paired rain gauge platforms, and a large network of 2D Video and Parsivel disdrometers were deployed. In something of a canonical approach, the radar (NPOL in particular), gauge and disdrometer observational assets were deployed to create a consistent high-quality distributed (time and space sampling) radar-based ground "reference" rainfall dataset, with known uncertainties, that could be used for assessing the satellite-based precipitation products at a range of space/time scales. Subsequently, the impact of uncertainties in the satellite products could be evaluated relative to the ground-benchmark in coupled weather, land-surface and distributed hydrologic modeling frameworks as related to flood prediction. Relative to establishing the ground-based "benchmark", numerous avenues were pursued in the making and verification of IFloodS "reference" dual-polarimetric radar-based rain maps, and this study documents the process and results as they pertain specifically to efforts using the NPOL radar dataset. The initial portions of the "process" involved dual-polarimetric quality control procedures which employed standard phase and correlation-based approaches to removal of clutter and non-meteorological echo. Calculation of a scale-adaptive KDP was accomplished using the method of Wang and Chandrasekar (2009; J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech.). A dual-polarimetric blockage algorithm based on Lang et al. (2009; J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech.) was then implemented to correct radar reflectivity and differential reflectivity at low elevation angles. Next, hydrometeor identification algorithms were run to identify liquid and ice hydrometeors. After the quality control and data preparation steps were completed several different dual-polarimetric rain estimation algorithms were employed to estimate rainfall rates using rainfall scans collected approximately every two to three minutes throughout the campaign. These algorithms included a polarimetrically-tuned Z-R algorithm that adjusts for drop oscillations (via Bringi et al., 2004, J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech.), and several different hybrid polarimetric variable approaches, including one that made use of parameters tuned to IFloodS 2D Video Disdrometer measurements. Finally, a hybrid scan algorithm was designed to merge the rain rate estimates from multiple low level elevation angle scans (where blockages could not be appropriately corrected) in order to create individual low-level rain maps. Individual rain maps at each time step were subsequently accumulated over multiple time scales for comparison to gauge network data. The comparison results and overall error character depended strongly on rain event type, polarimetric estimator applied, and range from the radar. We will present the outcome of these comparisons and their impact on constructing composited "reference" rainfall maps at select time and space scales.

Radar↗

DOE OSTI2026

ML-based Micro-CT SOFC Microstructure Models (from Kent 2026 Microstructural Augmentation paper)

Overview -------------------------- This repository contains datasets from the manuscript **"Enhanced Generalizability to Deep-Learning Quantification of 3D Microstructural Characteristics through Microstructurally Aware Augmentation of Scarce Data"** (*William F. Kent, Rochan Bajpai, Rachel C. Kurchin, William K. Epting, Harry W. Abernathy, Paul A. Salvador. Submitted 2026*). The methods are also described in the dissertation **Data Intensive Analysis of Solid Oxide Cell Microstructures** (*Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, 2025*). The datasets here are trained convolutional neural network (CNN) models for predicting key microstructural properties of solid oxide cell (SOC) electrodes from low-res, 2-channel 3D images, as well as some helpful code. The parameters for input images are provided in the paper. Sample data is provided in the file `Combined_anode_aug_dual_1k_examples` - that particular data was used to train `anode_all_aug.pth` and will work most accurately with that model. Please familiarize yourself with all caveats on accuracy and applicability, as detailed in the associated paper. Usage -------------------------- The basic usage is as follows, assuming `model_fn` is the path to the .pth file, and `X` is 2-channel input image(s) of the proper dimensions (either one image of shape `[2,12,24,24]`, or a batch of N input images of shape `[N,2,12,24,24]`): from CNN_inferencer import load_model_for_inference model = load_model_for_inference(model_fn) y_predicted = model(X) The model object automatically handles input scaling and output de-scaling based on the way the models were trained - in other words, pass in a 2-channel micro-CT image, and it will output microstructural property values in real units. ## Other model object attributes Note that model has useful attributes other than its forward pass model(X). * `model.output_descaler` - returns the output descaler object. Model does the de-scaling when generating inferences, but you may want to re-use this de-scaler on other values to e.g. compare predictions to ground truth from already-scaled training data. * `model.prop_names` - Gives the property names of the predicted y values, in order. Only exists if there's an output scaler as part of the model object, which there will be in the models provided here. ## Usage with sample data Here is a short script to use with the included sample data. from CNN_inferencer import display_predictions, load_model_for_inference, calculate_mape, parity_plot import h5py import numpy as np model_fn = 'anode_all_aug.pth' data_fn = 'Combined_anode_aug_dual_1k_examples.h5' N_samples = 200 figure_outdir = '.' model = load_model_for_inference(model_fn) with h5py.File(data_fn,'r') as f: XX = f['X'] #These are the 2-channel 3D images yy = f['y'] #These are the ground-truth microstructural properties, but they have been scaled for training - need to de-scale below N = XX.shape[0] #How many images total in the input data file #Run inferences on N_samples random samples from XX. #Run in a batch, much more efficient than one at a time. ii = np.random.choice(N,N_samples,replace=False) ii.sort() y_pred = model(XX[ii]) #Get the original/true (but normalized/scaled) values from the training dataset... #Because they were normalized, they are not in real units yet. So let's also de-scale them using model.output_scaler. y_true = model.output_scaler.transform(yy[ii]) #Let's display actual values for just 5 random ones for i in np.random.choice(N_samples,5,replace=False): display_predictions(y_true[i], y_pred[i], model.prop_names) #Make parity plots for each property (ground truth vs predicted values) #Also label each plot with the mean abs. percent error (MAPE) of the predicted values for i,key in enumerate(model.prop_names): mape = calculate_mape(y_true[:,i], y_pred[:,i]) parity_plot(y_true[:,i], y_pred[:,i], figure_outdir, key, extra_title=f' ({mape:.2f}% MAPE)')

3D microstructure↗

DOE OSTI2020

Measurement Uncertainty in One-Of-A-Kind Event Data Analysis

A golden standard in science is to repeat an experiment a statistically significant number of times, recording data using the same set of detectors and the same data analysis methodology. In such case experimental error includes both the range of true values generated by repetitions of the experiment, and measurement uncertainty caused by the detector. They are independent. It is a huge and too frequently used simplification, to assume that one can measure multiple repetitions of an identical experiment, resulting in identical true experimental value. Repetitions, as similar is it is experimentally achievable, have unavoidable built-in differences resulting in a range of the true values rather than in a single value. When modern, very sensitive and well calibrated measurement systems are used, this range is not negligible, and sometimes dominates over the measurement uncertainty. Range of true values depends on built-in differences in physics of the experiment. Stochastic physical processes result typically in a broader range of true values than non-stochastic processes do. Measurement uncertainty depends on a measurement method (properties of the detector not of the experiment). Modern measurement methods, including digital ones, frequently make the measurement uncertainty very small. When data from one–of –a kind experiment are analyzed, only the measurement uncertainty is reported. It provides no information about the range of true experimental values, neither about reliability of a reported data point. Reliability of a data point is in general independent from its measurement uncertainty. However, in practice reliable measurement methods frequently have high measurement uncertainty, while low reliability methods are applied to limit measurement uncertainty. Comparison of reliable data with high measurement uncertainty to not so reliable data measured with low uncertainty is discussed – in different scenarios different data analysis methods are applicable. Methods for data analysis from an experiment repeated statistically significant number of times are very well developed. They do not require a detailed expertise in physics of an experiment, nor in the properties of the measurement system used, and meaning of the reported uncertainty is well understood in any scientific community. It all changes when data from one-of-a-kind experiment is analyzed. Analyst’s expertise is required both in the physics of the experiment and in all aspects of the measurement system, all possible malfunctions. Data users must remember that only measurement uncertainty is reported from any one-of-a-kind experiment. Theory with simulations may provide estimation of expected built-in differences in the experiment, and by this of expected range of true values for a given experiment; yet measurement uncertainty can never be used in place of the range of true experimental values.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗

DOE OSTI2024

Long-Term field testing of the accuracy and HVAC energy savings potential of occupancy presence sensors in A Single-Family home

The energy-saving potential of occupancy-centric smart thermostats has been extensively explored in simulations but lacked field testing for energy savings quantification and sensor performance assessment in real buildings. This paper presents a long-term field study conducted in a single-family home in Texas, U.S. to evaluate the performance of occupancy-centric controls (OCC) of HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning) system in terms of energy savings, sensor accuracy, and impact on electric peak demand. The test site was equipped with a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) smart thermostat and multiple occupancy presence sensors for OCC implementation. Additionally, a sub-metering system was installed to monitor electricity consumption of various end-use equipment, including the HVAC system. A supplementary device was installed to track the ground-truth occupancy for the accuracy evaluation of the occupancy presence sensor. Scenarios of baseline and OCC controls were alternated weekly over the 20-month testing period. The results indicated an effective OCC execution, as evidenced by indoor temperature profiles. During the 2023 cooling season, OCC achieved total energy savings of 1,958 kWh, corresponding to a 17.6% energy savings ratio. Under certain conditions, daily HVAC energy savings reached as high as 17 kWh, with a savings ratio of 35%. Sensor performance showed an overall accuracy of 83.8%, a False Positive Rate (FPR) of 12.8%, and a False Negative Rate (FNR) of 47.4%. A key limitation was the sensor’s inability to detect stationary occupants during sleep, leading to a midnight FNR of nearly 100% and significantly compromising thermal comfort. Additionally, the implementation of OCC resulted in extended periods of high electricity demand on summer afternoons, affecting occupant’s thermal comfort and posing potential challenges to community-level grid operations if OCC were widely adopted. Furthermore, this study addresses a critical research gap by empirically investigating energy-saving potential and occupancy sensor performance in residential buildings. Through a comprehensive field-testing study, the research examines the interrelationship between sensor accuracy, energy savings, and thermal comfort, an area that has received limited attention in the current literature.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2023

Artificial intelligence models, photos, and data associated with the manuscript “Quantifying Streambed Grain Size, Uncertainty, and Hydrobiogeochemical Parameters Using Machine Learning Model YOLO” (v2)

This data package is associated with the manuscript “Quantifying Streambed Grain Size, Uncertainty, and Hydrobiogeochemical Parameters Using Machine Learning Model YOLO” published in Water Resources Research (Chen et al., 2024). This data package includes the training, validation, testing, and prediction data used by the artificial intelligence (AI) model for automated grain size and hydro-biogeochemistry quantification using streambed photos. The grain size data are extracted for each photo using You Look Only Once (YOLO), a pre-trained object detection model. This data package was originally published in October 2023. It was updated August 2025 (v2; new and modified files). File and folder names were not revised to indicate changes. See the change history section in the readme for more details. Please see flmd.csv for a list of all files contained in this data package and descriptions for each. Please see dd.csv for a data dictionary that defines the column headers of .csv files in the data package. This dataset is comprised of one data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) readme; and (4) six subfolders. Subfolders 1 to 4 include the training, validation, testing, and prediction data. Subfolder 5_Summary includes the summary results of different combinations of training, validation, testing, and prediction data. Subfolder 6_SupplementalData includes additional data downloaded from public sources (Kaufman et al., 2023a; Kaufman et al., 2023b; Garefalakis et al., 2023; Mair et al., 2024; https://github.com/river-corridors-sfa/Geospatial_variables). In total, the data package includes 110 folders and 44,283 files. These files include 9,047 .jpg photos, 1 .png photo, 3 .tif photos; 26,639 photo labels and individual grain sizes and probability from AI (.txt); 8,447 grain size distribution data (.dat); and 126 CSV files for results summary, and 14 required metadata files (.xlsx). The summary CSV files contain 68 columns and approximately 2,200 rows that represent photo names, site locations, recording time, GPS coordinates, grains sizes (D10, D50, D60, and D84), number of grains, and additional hydro-biogeochemical data such as water depth, flow velocity, Manning’s coefficient, friction factor, hydraulic conductivity, permeability, streambed interstitial velocity magnitude, mass transfer rate, and nitrate uptake velocity. The photos were obtained from 75 sites in the Yakima River Basin and the Columbia River shorelines, and other associated data from samples and sensors obtained when the photos were taken are publicly available (Fulton et al. 2022; Grieger et al. 2023). All files are .csv, .txt, .dat, .jpg, or .pdf. We acknowledge the Yakama Nation as owners and caretakers of the lands where we collected some of these data. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗