Results for “structured text” — Page 27

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-00: Medical Physics Workshop: An Update On the Journal’s Improvement Activities and Guidance On Writing and Reviewing Papers

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-01: Vision for Medical Physics and Status of Current Initiatives

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-02: Improving Manuscript Quality Via Structured Reviews, Enhanced Scientific Category Taxonomy, and Outreach

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-03: Writing Good Scientific Papers and Responding to Critiques

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Advanced modeling and simulation of research reactors using dynamic mode decomposition

Full text of publication follows. Due to the ever-increasing safety requirements, the current trend of nuclear reactor analysis is shifting towards high-fidelity multi-physics models, which have a very high computational cost and modelling complexity. As the cost of even a single model run makes it impossible to analyse the behaviour and performance of these models on large-scale commercial plants, it has become even more significant to provide suitable benchmarks to validate and test them extensively. In this sense, research reactors offer a promising solution for the initial validation of high-fidelity models, as they are significantly smaller than commercial reactors and their characteristics are well known. In particular, the reactors of the TRIGA family have been used to assess and validate models and methods for Generation-IV designs, as they have some similar features (such as the dominance of natural convection as cooling mechanism and the difficulties in performing sub-channel analysis using standard codes). Still, the computational requirements of high-fidelity models make them unsuitable for real-time analysis, even following their assessment on research reactors. In this sense, Model Order Reduction (MOR) techniques give an additional strategy to reduce the computational cost of high-fidelity models (whilst preserving sufficient accuracy). In particular, this work focuses on Dynamic Mode Decomposition (DMD), a non-intrusive MOR technique that aims at representing models with explicit temporal dynamics by extracting the time-varying characteristics and the governing structures based only on a set of available data, thus without needing any underlying knowledge of the governing equations. In addition, DMD also computes a low-dimensional surrogate of the dynamic matrix of the system, making it suited for stability analysis and real-time evaluations. This work focuses on the application and validation of the DMD method on the Computational Fluid-Dynamics (CFD) model TRIGA Mark II reactor, also discussing in detail the potentiality of this algorithm as an advanced modelling tool for nuclear reactor analysis. (author)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

NASA NTRS2003

Rough-Wall Channel Analysis Using Suboptimal Control Theory

The original aim of this work was to shed some light on the physics of turbulence over rough walls using large-eddy simulations and the suboptimal-control wall boundary conditions introduced by Nicoud et al. It was hoped that, if that algorithm was used to fit the mean velocity profile of the simulations to that of a rough-walled channel, instead of to a smooth one, the wall stresses introduced by the control algorithm would give some indication of what aspects of rough walls are most responsible for the modification of the flow in real turbulence. It was similarly expected that the structure of the resulting velocity fluctuations would share some of the characteristics of rough-walled flows, thus again suggesting what is intrinsic and what is accidental in the effect of geometric wall roughness. A secondary goal was to study the effect of 'unphysical' boundary conditions on the outside flow by observing how a relatively major change of the target velocity profile, and therefore presumably of the applied wall stresses, modifies properties such as the dominant length scales of the velocity fluctuations away from the wall. As will be seen below, this secondary goal grew more important during the course of the study, which was carried out during a short summer visit of the first two authors to the CTR. It became clear that there are open questions about the way in which the control algorithm models the boundary conditions, even for smooth walls, and that these questions make the physical interpretation of the results difficult. Considerable more work in that area seems to be needed before even relatively advanced large-eddy simulations, such as these, can be used to draw conclusions about the physics of wall-bounded turbulent flows. The numerical method is the same as in Nicoud et al. The modifications introduced in the original code are briefly described in section 2, but the original paper should be consulted for a full description of the algorithm. The results are presented in section 3 and summarized in section 4. The elementary properties of turbulence over rough walls which are used in the text have been taken from recent reviews such as Raupach et al. or Jimenez.

Flores, O.↗

DOE OSTI2020

EGS Collab Experiment 1: 3D Seismic Velocity Model and Updated Microseismic Catalog from Double-Difference Seismic Tomography

This package contains a 3D Seismic velocity model and an updated microseismic catalog obtained for a double-difference seismic tomography study. The 3D_seismic_velocity_model text file contains x (m), y(m), z(m), P-wave velocity (km/s), P-wave velocity quality indicator (1 for well-constrained; 0 for poorly constrained), S-wave velocity (km/s), and S-wave velocity quality indicator (1 for well-constrained; 0 for poorly constrained). The Updated_MEQ_catalog text file contains event origin time, x(m), y(m), z(m), error in x (m), error in y (m), error in z (m), and RMS misfit (millisecond). The 3D_seismic_P-wave_velocity_model animation file shows slices of the 3D P-wave velocity model. The 3D_seismic_S-wave_velocity_model animation file shows slices of the 3D S-wave velocity model. The Interactive_MEQ_location_comparison API file is an interactive visualization of the updated microseismic event locations and the original seismic catalog. The visualization allows users to view and compare the event locations by dragging, rotating, and zooming in. An updated version of 3D_seismic_velocity_model and associated animations were included, which were calculated with a more strict assumption for quality indicators.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2020

EGS Collab Experiment 1: 3D Seismic Velocity Model and Updated Microseismic Catalog Using Transfer-Learning Aided Double-Difference Tomography

This package contains a 3D Seismic velocity model and an updated microseismic catalog associated with a proceedings paper (Chai et al., 2020) published in the 45th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. The 3D_seismic_velocity_model text file contains x (m), y(m), z(m), P-wave velocity (km/s), P-wave velocity quality indicator (1 for well-constrained; 0 for poorly constrained), S-wave velocity (km/s), and S-wave velocity quality indicator (1 for well-constrained; 0 for poorly constrained). The Updated_MEQ_catalog text file contains event origin time, x(m), y(m), z(m), error in x (m), error in y (m), error in z (m), and RMS misfit (millisecond). The 3D_seismic_P-wave_velocity_model animation file shows slices of the 3D P-wave velocity model. The 3D_seismic_S-wave_velocity_model animation file shows slices of the 3D S-wave velocity model. The Interactive_MEQ_locations API file is an interactive visualization of the updated microseismic event locations. The visualization allows users to view the event locations by dragging, rotating, and zooming in. References: Chai, C., Maceira, M., Santos-Villalobos, H. J., Venkatakrishnan, S. V., Schoenball, M., and EGS Collab Team, 2020, Automatic Seismic Phase Picking Using Deep Learning for the EGS Collab Project, in PROCEEDINGS, 45th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, edited, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 45, 1266-1276.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

TRAILS Output Files

Overview This data repository contains ZIP files that store compressed versions of the output of running the WaterPaths utility planning and management tool in the DU Re-Evaluation mode (to download the tool, please see this GitHub repository). The tool was used to simulate the six-utility North Carolina Research Triangle problem. Details on the contents of each ZIP file can be seen below. Data details Temporal range: Weekly data for 2,344 weeks from 2015 to 2060 (45 years). Spatial range: Six water utilities in the North Carolina Research Triangle region (0: Chapel Hil/OWASA, 1: Durham, 2: Cary, 3: Raleigh, 4: Pittsboro, and 5: Chatham) File types: CSV and OUT Different solutions available The solution numbers correspond to the different pathway strategies (henceforth referred to as "solutions") discussed in paper's main and supporting text (abstract and link to the paper here). They are as follows: Sol92: The Durham-focused pathway strategy Sol132: The Raleigh-focused pathway strategy Sol140: The regionally-robust pathway strategy Objectives files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Objectives_RDMXX_solsXX_to_XX.csv files. Each CSV file will consist of a row representing all the objective values for that specific solution, while every six columns represents the reliability, restriction frequency, infrastructure net present value ($ mil), peak financial cost, worst-case cost, and unit cost ($ per MG; in that order) for each of the six utilities. There will be 1,000 such files, denoting the performance of the six utilities across the 1,000 deeply uncertain states of the world (DU SOWs). Pathway files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Pathways_sXX_RDMXX.out file. Each OUT corresponds to the set of infrastructure being triggered in a specific DU SOW, and each file will have the name file will consist of four tab-delimited columns that are described as follows: Realization: The realization in which an infrastructure options being triggered utility: The utility currently triggering infrastructure week: The week in which a specific infrastructure option is being triggered infra.: The infrastructure option being triggered If the OUT file contains only the header line, no infrastructure was triggered for that specific DU SOW. Policies files These files can be obtained by unzipping Policies.zip. Each of the 1,000 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly water use restriction policies for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: 0rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 0 (values between 0 and 1) 1rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 1 (values between 0 and 1) 2rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 2 (values between 0 and 1) 3rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 3 (values between 0 and 1) 4rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 4 (values between 0 and 1) 5rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 5 (values between 0 and 1) 0transf: transfer volume for utility 0 (in MGD) 1transf: transfer volume for utility 1 (in MGD) 2transf: transfer volume for utility 2 (in MGD) 3transf: transfer volume for utility 3 (in MGD) 4transf: transfer volume for utility 4 (in MGD) 5transf: transfer volume for utility 5 (in MGD) Water Sources files These files can be obtained by unzipping WaterSources_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each water source for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xvolume: available water volume from source X (in MGD) Xs_area: surface area of source X (in ACF) Xdemand: demand drawn from a water source from source X (in MGD) Xup_spill: upstream spillage from source X (in MGD) Xww_inflow: wastewater inflow from source X (in MGD) Xcatch_inflow: upstream catchment inflow to source X (in MGD) Xevap: evaporation multiplier for source X (values between 0 and 1) Xds_spill: downstream spillage from source X (in MGD) X_Y_alloc_cap: the allocated capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) X_Y_alloc_dem: the allocated demand from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Xtrmt_alloc_Y: the allocated treatment capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Utilities files These files can be obtained by unzipping Utilities_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each utility for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xcapacity: total storage capacity of utility X (in MG) Xnet_inf: : net inflow for all storage infrastructure for utility X (in MGD) Xst_rof: short term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_stor_rof: short-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_trmt_rof: short-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_rof: long-term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_stor_rof: long-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_trmt_rof: long-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xrest_demand: restricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunrest_demand: unrestricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunfulf_demand: unfulfilled demand for utility X (in MGD) Xwastewater: wastewater return for utility X (in MGD) Xtreat_capacity: total treatment capacity for utility X (in MG) Xcont_fund: reserve (contingency) fund balance for utility X Xins_pout: insurance payout for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xins_price: insurance price for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xinfra_npv: infrastructure net present value for utility ($mil) Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xdebt_serv: debt service for utility X (usually once per year if the infrastructure is triggered; % annual volumetric revenue) Xstor_vol: total stored volume (in MGD) Xobs_ann_dem: observed annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xproj_dem: projected annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xpv_debt_serv: present value of debt service payments for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xgross_rev: gross revenue for utility X ($mil) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

Artificial Intelligence↗

DOE OSTI2025

Fine structure in the α decay of $^{179}$Hg and $^{177}$Au

Abstract The$$\upalpha $$ α -decay fine structure of$$^{179}$$ 179 Hg and$$^{177}$$ 177 Au was studied by means of decay spectroscopy. Two experiments were performed at the Accelerator Laboratory of the University of Jyväskylä (JYFL), Finland, utilizing the recoil separator RITU and a digital data acquisition system. The heavy-ion induced fusion-evaporation reactions$$^{82}_{36}$$ 36 82 Kr + $$^{100}_{44}$$ 44 100 Ru and$$^{88}_{38}$$ 38 88 Kr + $$^{92}_{42}$$ 42 92 Mo were used to produce the$$^{179}$$ 179 Hg and$$^{177}$$ 177 Au nuclei, respectively. Studying the evaporation residues (ER, recoils)-$$\alpha _1$$ α 1 -$$\alpha _2$$ α 2 correlations and$$\upalpha $$ α -$$\gamma $$ γ coincidences, a new$$\upalpha $$ α decay with E$$_\alpha $$ α = 6156(10) keV was observed from$$^{179}$$ 179 Hg. This decay populates the (9/2$$^-$$ - ) excited state at an excitation energy of 131.3(5) keV in$$^{175}$$ 175 Pt. The internal conversion coefficient for the 131.3(5) keV transition de-exciting this state was measured for the first time. Regarding the$$^{177}$$ 177 Au nucleus, a new$$\upalpha $$ α decay with E$$_\alpha $$ α = 5998(9) keV was observed to populate the 156.1(6) keV excited state in$$^{173}$$ 173 Ir. Two de-excitation paths were observed from this excited state. Moreover, a new 215.7(13) keV transition was observed to depopulate the 424.4(13) keV excited state in$$^{173}$$ 173 Ir. Properties of the$$^{179}$$ 179 Hg and$$^{177}$$ 177 Au$$\upalpha $$ α decays were examined in a framework of reduced widths and hindrance factors. For clarity and simplicity, the spin and parity assignments (e.g.$$J^{\pi }$$ J π ) are presented without brackets throughout the text.

Physics↗

DOE OSTI2018

Correlating Enzymes to Antimicrobial Resistance in the Protein Data Bank

Antibiotic resistant bacteria are predicted to be the leading cause of death worldwide, with an expected death rate of 10 million people, annually, by 2050. It is vital that antimicrobial resistance (AMR) be understood at the molecular level. The Protein Data Bank (PDB) archive holds over 130,000 3D structures of macromolecular machines that can be analyzed using the RCSB PDB website at RCSB.org. Studying these 3D structures enables scientific research and education in a variety of fields, including drug discovery, nanotechnology, green energy, and disease. In this study, PDB enzymes related to antibiotic inhibitors were identified and further analyzed using additional bioinformatics including The Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD). CARD holds up to date clinically relevant antibiotic related information. CARD identified 4,688 Genbank IDs (protein accession codes) that are related to AMR. These codes were then put into the Uniprot website which holds protein sequences. As a result, 696 macromolecules related to AMR were found in the PDB. I specifically researched Metallo Beta Lactamases (MBL) because have a large correlation to AMR and have been studied in great detail, with many examples in the PDB. Prominent enzymes in this category include the New Delhi Beta Lactamase which can cleave most if not all antibiotics. This particular “superbug” was found to cleave penicillin, cephalosporin, and carbapenem antibiotics. Using 3D visualizations of beta lactamase enzymes a correlation between zinc ions and spectrum of antibiotic resistance was found. For example, if an enzyme had two zinc ions instead of one it could inhibit broad spectrum antibiotics. In conclusion, the findings of this research presented here will be used to develop novel AMR tab at RCSB.org that will provide antimicrobial details of enzymes that were unavailable before. In the near future a phylogenetic tree of AMR related enzymes and classification details will be implemented. Support or Funding Information RCSB PDB is funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation (DBI‐1338415) , the National Institutes of Health , and the US Department of Energy . This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

Salcedo, Priscilla M.↗

DOE OSTI2023

Magnetic frustration driven by conduction carrier blocking in Nd 2 Co 0.85 Si 2.88

The intermetallic compound Nd 2 Co 0.85 Si 2.88 having a triangular lattice could be synthesized in single phase only with defect crystal structure. Investigation through different experimental techniques indicate the presence of two magnetic transitions in the system. As verified experimentally and theoretically, the high-temperature transition $T_H$ ~ 140 K is associated with the development of ferromagnetic interaction between itinerant Co moments, whereas the low-temperature transition at $T_L$ ~ 6.5 K is due to the coupling among Nd–4$\textit{f}$ and Co–3$\textit{d}$ moments, which is antiferromagnetic in nature. Detailed studies of temperature-dependent dc magnetic susceptibility, field dependence of isothermal magnetization, nonequilibrium dynamical behavior, viz., magnetic relaxation, aging effect, magnetic-memory effect, and temperature dependence of heat capacity, along with density functional theory (DFT) calculations, suggest that the ground state is magnetically frustrated spin glass in nature, having competing magnetic interactions of equivalent energies. DFT results further reveal that the 3$\textit{d}$/5$\textit{d}$-conduction carriers are blocked in the system and act as a barrier for the 4$\textit{f}$–4$\textit{f}$ RKKY interactions, resulting in spin frustration. Presence of vacancy defects in the crystal are also conducive to the spin frustration. This is an unique mechanism of magnetic frustration, not emphasized so far in any of the ternary $R_2TX_3$ ($\textit{R}$ = rare earth, $\textit{T}$ = transition elements, and $\textit{X}$ = Si, Ge, In) type compounds. Due to the competing character of the itinerant 3$\textit{d}$ and localized 4$\textit{f}$ moments, the compound exhibits anomalous field dependence of magnetic coercivity. Further, the system also exhibits a considerable magnetic entropy change of –Δ$S_M$ ~ 13.3 J/kg K with a relative cooling power (RCP) of 220 J/kg and adiabatic temperature change $ΔT_{\text{ad}}$ of 6 K for magnetic field change of 70 kOe.

75 CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND↗

DOE OSTI2019

l3d2vtk: An MCNPTools Utility to Enable LNK3DNT File Visualization & Post-Processing

This paper describes recent work to develop and incorporate a utility program into the MCNPTools package that enables LNK3DNT file visualization & post-processing. A LNK3DNT file is a binary Cartesian, cylindrical, or spherical structured mesh file that describes material and material relative density distributions by mesh voxel. This mesh file format is principally used by the PARTISN discrete-ordinates radiation-transport code. However, the MCNP ® Monte Carlo radiation-transport code can use LNK3DNT files to specify geometry, and the MCNP code can produce LNK3DNT files representing a user-defined region of the MCNP constructive solid geometry (CSG). Because of the use of LNK3DNT files as MCNP input and output and with other computer codes, improving the ability to visualize and/or quantitatively post-process LNK3DNT files benefits end users. In particular, it is helpful to visually verify that the material and density distributions are as expected. Also, an analyst can orient viewers with respect to other in formation, e.g., by co-plotting a voxelized representation of MCNP CSG with mesh tally and/or particle track results. However, until now, the only capability to interactively interrogate LNK3DNT files is through a 2-D slice plotter provided by the Monte Carlo Application ToolKit (MCATK), which is not currently distributed outside of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The utility created as part of this work converts LNK3DNT binary files to an ASCII XML-based StructuredMesh VTK (.vts) file. The geometries supported are 1-D spherical and cylindrical ( r ), 1-D Cartesian ( x ), 2-D cylindrical ( r-z and r-θ ) and Cartesian ( x-y ), and 3-D cylindrical ( r-z-θ ) and Cartesian ( x-y-z ). This file format is chosen to minimize external dependencies (e.g., on an HDF5 library) and to provide a file that can be interrogated by the user in a text editor or standard visualization applications (e.g., ParaView or VisIt). However, other file formats may provide more utility such as XDMF, which can use HDF5 and is discussed further as something to explore as future work. This paper is organized as follows: a brief introduc tion to the MCNPTools library and utility programs is given, the LNK3DNT-to-VTK (l3d2vtk) utility functionality is de scribed, and then an example post-processing workflow using the ParaView application is given.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2014

TH-D-16A-01: Medical Physics Workshop: Editorial Vision and Guidance On Writing and Reviewing Papers

On January 1, 2014, editorial leadership of Medical Physics passed from esteemed long-time Editor Bill Hendee to a collective editorial group composed of the three presenters listed above. In this presentation, we would like to outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. Vision for Medical Physics and current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief We cannot improve on Dr. Hendee's succinct vision statement “to continue the Journal's tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be s the preeminent forum for electronic exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; or (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities we face are: are electronic-only and open access publishing; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. To address these issues over the next 3 years, we have reduced the size of our Editorial Board and focused its efforts on improving the Journal's impact through 4 working groups (WGs): WG-1: Review process quality and selectivity Creation of 120 member Board of Associate Editors to improve review uniformity by placing Ms. management in fewer hands New reviewer guidelines and templates Answer: “what is the scope of medical physics research?” Recursive taxonomy for tagging review expertise and article contents WG-2 Improving reader experience Redesigning http://MedPhys.org to host interactive features and gateway to electronic issue archive Experimentation with interactive features beginning with “Point/Counterpoint” Data mining and Journal quality evaluation Find out who are audiences are Identify characteristics of high impact articles Measure effectiveness of innovations Outreach to related communities Special issues presenting high-impact work in designated subcommunities Addressing the needs of new research constituencies: engineers, biophysicists, clinicians Guidelines and templates for reviewers and associate editors: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor We will discuss the Med. Phys. review process and a new initiative to create review templates that attempts to address current shortcomings. Template design is informed by the literature on of the review process effectiveness and practices of other journals. Its goals are to provide authors more constructive criticism to improve the manuscript; quantifying perceived importance and potential impact; and providing structured sections that prompt the reviewer to addresses important technical and editorial elements. While the template is recommended to be used, reviewers could alternatively enter their comments in the older free-form style. The expectations of the template are that it will enable consistently thorough, high quality reviews that accurately separate acceptable vs. substandard submissions but continue our tradition of helping authors to enhance papers with high potential. Ultimately, the goal is to reduce variability and subjectivity in the peer-review process, in turn leading to articles with higher research and clinical impact. We will also discuss interesting perspectives from several journals on aspects of the peer-review process such as public input via comments, influence of author-suggested reviewers, and bias in reviewer selection. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics Ms. must include a clear and concise statement of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of their work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; or first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Authors must also include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail that the work can be reproduced by others; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate their hypothesis, how it compares to; is distinct from, and improves upon others' work; and the limitations of their study. When the authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-bypoint response to each comment. We now ask that the authors' rebuttal include the text of the original criticism, the authors' response, and the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. We also ask that the new text be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. These changes and others will be discussed. Their purpose is to facilitate the review process.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

DOE OSTI2021

AGR 5/6/7 Data Qualification Report for ATR Cycles 162B through 168A

This report provides the qualification status of experimental data for the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) 5/6/7 fuel irradiation. AGR-5/6/7 was conducted in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in support of development and qualification of tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) low-enriched fuel for use in high temperature gas-cooled reactors. The objectives of the AGR-5/6/7 experiments are to: (i) irradiate reference-design fuel particles to support fuel qualification, (ii) establish operating margins for the fuel beyond normal operating conditions, and (iii) provide irradiated-fuel performance data and irradiated-fuel samples for post-irradiation examination (PIE) and safety testing. The test train contains five separate capsules that were independently controlled and monitored. Each capsule contains multiple 12.51-mm-long compacts filled with low enriched uranium carbide/oxide (UCO) TRISO fuel particles. The primary objective of the AGR-5/6 test (Capsules 1, 2, 4, and 5) is to verify successful performance of the reference-design fuel under normal operating conditions. The AGR-7 test (Capsule 3) was designed to explore fuel performance at higher temperatures to demonstrate the capability of the fuel to withstand conditions beyond normal operating conditions in support of plant design and licensing. AGR 5/6/7 will also provide irradiated-fuel performance data on fission-gas release from failed particles during irradiation. The AGR-5/6/7 capsules were irradiated in the ATR northeast flux trap location. The experiment began on February 16, 2018 and ended on July 22, 2020, spanning nine ATR cycles over two and a half years. Thus, the AGR-5/6/7 fuel compacts were irradiated for a total of 360.9 effective full power days. The AGR 5/6/7 experiment was able to remain in the reactor core during all three Powered Axial Locator Mechanism (PALM) cycles (163A, 165A, and 167A) without overheating its fuel compacts. This report includes irradiation monitoring data from nine ATR Cycles: 162B, 163A, 164A, 164B, 165A, 166A, 166B, 167A, and 168A, as stored in the Nuclear Data Management and Analysis System (NDMAS). During irradiation, data records consisted of instantaneous measurements recorded every minute and provided by text files automatically every 2 hours. The AGR 5/6/7 data streams addressed in this report include thermocouple (TC) temperatures, sweep gas data (flow rates [capsule inlet, outlet, and downstream at detector], pressure, and moisture content), and Fission Product Monitoring System (FPMS) data (release rates and release to birth rate ratios [R/Bs]) for each of the five capsules. A total of 94,989,908 TC temperature and sweep gas data records were received and processed by NDMAS for AGR 5/6/7 irradiation. Of these records, 41,593,387 (or 43.7% of the total) met data collection and accuracy requirements and are labeled as Qualified. A total of 57,746,693 TC temperature readings were captured from 54 installed TCs. Among them, 10,034,676 TC temperature records (only 17.4%) were Qualified and 47,701,371 TC temperatures (or 82.6%) are Failed due to 48 TC failures (63.5%) and due to missing values (19.1%). To assess performance of the operational TCs, analysis of daily correlations between TCs found no evidence of virtual junction failure for any TCs. Analyses on control charts of TC temperature differences revealed trending in TC readings for TC2, 4, 5, and 13 in Capsule 3, but there is no conclusive indication of TC drift failure that caused those trends. Therefore, TC control charts are not used to disqualify TC data, but only for users’ consideration. For sweep gas flow rates, a total of 31,519,747 gas flow records (84.4%) are Qualified for use for AGR-5/6/7 experiment; 5,723,468 gas flow records (15.4%) are Failed due mostly to missing values; and 74,641 high sweep gas flow rates (0.2 %) are Trend. A large number of Failed missing TC temperature and gas flow values were caused by an error in the data output script that outputted a ‘NULL’ value when values were unchanged. This problem was fixed during the outage of Cycle 166B, which led to a substantially decreased number of missing values during the last three cycles. Nonetheless, a large amount of non-missing data remained because of the high data acquisition frequency (1-minute) and still provided sufficient data to effectively monitor the experiment as designed. For FPMS data, NDMAS received and processed fission product release and R/B data for nine ATR cycles, when ATR core reached full power during AGR 5/6/7 irradiation. These data consist of 110,388 release rate records and 110,388 R/B records for the twelve radionuclides (Kr 85m, Kr 87, Kr 88, Kr 89, Kr 90, Xe 131m, Xe 133, Xe 135, Xe 135m, Xe 137, Xe 138, and Xe 139) for each of the five capsules. Equivalent numbers of uncertainty records associated the release rates and R/B values were provided. To date, qualification status of the FPMS data stored in the NDMAS dat

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2017

Computational Thermodynamics of Materials Zi-Kui Liu and Yi Wang

This authoritative volume introduces the reader to computational thermodynamics and the use of this approach to the design of material properties by tailoring the chemical composition. The text covers applications of this approach, introduces the relevant computational codes, and offers exercises at the end of each chapter. The book has nine chapters and two appendices that provide background material on computer codes. Chapter 1 covers the first and second laws of thermodynamics, introduces the spinodal as the limit of stability, and presents the Gibbs-Duhem equation. Chapter 2 focuses on the Gibbs energy function. Starting with a homogeneous system with a single phase, the authors proceed to phases with variable compositions, and polymer blends. The discussion includes the contributions of external electric and magnetic fields to the Gibbs energy. Chapter 3 deals with phase equilibria in heterogeneous systems, the Gibbs phase rule, and phase diagrams. Chapter 4 briefly covers experimental measurements of thermodynamic properties used as input for thermodynamic modeling by Calculation of Phase Diagrams (CALPHAD). Chapter 5 discusses the use of density functional theory to obtain thermochemical data and fill gaps where experimental data is missing. The reader is introduced to the Vienna Ab Initio Simulation Package (VASP) for density functional theory and the YPHON code for phonon calculations. Chapter 6 introduces the modeling of Gibbs energy of phases with the CALPHAD method. Chapter 7 deals with chemical reactions and the Ellingham diagram for metal-oxide systems and presents the calculation of the maximum reaction rate from equilibrium thermodynamics. Chapter 8 is devoted to electrochemical reactions and Pourbaix diagrams with application examples. Chapter 9 concludes this volume with the application of a model of multiple microstates to Ce and Fe3Pt. CALPHAD modeling is briefly discussed in the context of genomics of materials. The book introduces basic thermodynamic concepts clearly and directs readers to appropriate references for advanced concepts and details of software implementation. The list of references is quite comprehensive. The authors make liberal use of diagrams to illustrate key concepts. The two Appendices at the end discuss software requirements and the file structure, and present templates for special quasi-random structures. There is also a link to download pre-compiled binary files of the YPHON code for Linux or Microsoft Windows systems. The exercises at the end of the chapters assume that the reader has access to VASP, which is not freeware. Readers without access to this code can work on a limited number of exercises. However, results from other first principles codes can be organized in the YPHON format as explained in the Appendix. This book will serve as an excellent reference on computational thermodynamics and the exercises provided at the end of each chapter make it valuable as a graduate level textbook. Reviewer: Ram Devanathan is Acting Director of Earth Systems Science Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, USA.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2025

AI Model Benchmarking for Nonproliferation Applications: Steel Thread Benchmarking Task Force Technical Report (Rev. 2)

Steel Thread is a NA-22 venture that seeks to build trustworthy, reliable AI models that can be used in a wide variety of nonproliferation tasks. A key aspect of building these models is developing appropriate benchmarks and evaluation methods, which will enable the venture to identify and adapt models to provide the most value in the nonproliferation domain. Benchmarks must be relevant to key tasks in this domain, such as question answering, information retrieval, document summarization and classification, consensus analysis, and image and data analysis. This report 1) provides an overview of benchmark design, evaluation, and challenges; 2) reviews a variety of open benchmarks, with a focus on language models and tasks; and 3) identifies benchmarks that are most relevant to Steel Thread. This report is intended to serve as a basis for further efforts to classify and evaluate benchmarks and their correlation with success on nonproliferation-specific tasks. The Steel Thread venture has defined benchmarks to be a particular combination of a dataset (or datasets) and a metric (or metrics) conceptualized as representing one or more specific tasks or sets of abilities for a specific modality. It is adopted by a research community as a shared framework for comparing methods.1 It includes 1) Data: Labeled (a designated subset not used for training, which could be all the data), 2) Metric: A way to quantify performance, 3) Task/Ability: What the benchmark is testing, 4) Protocol: A structured and repeatable evaluation process, 5) Baseline/Reference Model: For comparison; could be statistical, rule-based, SME-derived, or another model, and 6) Maintenance Plan: to update with new information over time; important for long-term utility. For further clarity, the definition includes what a benchmark, in this context, is not. It is not a corpus of training data, specific to a model (it is intended to apply to a range of models), a universal evaluation of performance, a guarantee that the ‘top’ model on the leaderboard will be the best fit for every specific use case, an all-encompassing proof of a model’s universal quality, nor is it a one-size-fits-all measure of success. It does not cover every real-world constraint (like operational, ethical, or cost considerations), a systems integration test, or a unit test. This definition was inspired by and resulted from discussions within the Steel Thread Benchmarking Task Force. This group was formed to define what we would mean as a benchmark within Steel Thread but persisted as the need to develop a thorough understanding of the large and expanding existing benchmarking space. This technical report is a result of the group’s divide and conquer approach to exploring this space. The release of benchmarks might not be progressing as quickly as model development, but it is moving very fast, as many benchmarks quickly become saturated, when state-of-the-art models score so close to the benchmark’s ceiling that their results are virtually indistinguishable. At that point, the test no longer differentiates between new systems, so researchers usually stop reporting scores as the benchmark no longer informs about improvements from the next generation of models. In the OpenAI announcement of GPT-5, they reported results on six flagship public benchmarks (AIME 2025, SWE-bench Verified, Aider Polyglot, MMMU, HealthBench Hard, GPQA) but the full system-card covers roughly thirty-five separate evaluations, comprising hundreds of test task items in total. There have been some efforts to summarize benchmarks in specific fields, like for text-to-image generation, but these surveys have had a narrow methodology scope. Therefore, a comprehensive survey of all benchmarks or even all benchmarks that could be relevant to Steel Thread is outside of the scope of this report. We chose some specific benchmarks to investigate in detail.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2024

Cosmological constraints from density-split clustering in the BOSS CMASS galaxy sample

We present a clustering analysis of the BOSS DR12 CMASS galaxy sample, combining measurements of the galaxy two-point correlation function and density-split clustering down to a scale of $1 \, h^{-1}\, \text{Mpc}$. Our theoretical framework is based on emulators trained on high-fidelity mock galaxy catalogues that forward model the cosmological dependence of the clustering statistics within an extended-ΛCDM framework, including redshift-space and Alcock–Paczynski distortions. Our base-ΛCDM analysis finds ω cdm = 0.1201 ± 0.0022, σ 8 = 0.792 ± 0.034, and n s = 0.970 ± 0.018, corresponding to fσ 8 = 0.462 ± 0.020 at z ≈ 0.525, which is in agreement with Planck 2018 predictions and various clustering studies in the literature. We test single-parameter extensions to base-ΛCDM, varying the running of the spectral index, the dark energy equation of state, and the density of mass-less relic neutrinos, finding no compelling evidence for deviations from the base model. We model the galaxy–halo connection using a halo occupation distribution framework, finding signatures of environment-based assembly bias in the data. We validate our pipeline against mock catalogues that match the clustering and selection properties of CMASS, showing that we can recover unbiased cosmological constraints even with a volume 84 times larger than the one used in this study.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗