Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Choice model”

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.

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

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

The right conditions for high-precision dynamic temperature and heat capacity measurement via pyrometry and conductivity

The pursuit of accurate bulk temperature T under extreme conditions has been a long-standing goal of the high pressure science community, complicated by a lack of data to inform models. To reach these extremely high-pressure, high-temperature (high P − T) conditions, a combination of dynamic and heated static experiments (e.g., diamond or gem anvil cel experiments) are used. For example, in a diamond anvil cell (DAC) experiment, a sample placed in the DAC is first pressurized. Following pressurization, the sample T is increased either by heating the entire DAC (usually using resistive heating, and limited to ∼1000K) or by applying intense laser power to the sample surfaces. In a dynamic experiment, the process of pressurizing the sample also heats it. In the case of shock physics experiments, such heating is substantial, easily reaching thousands of Kelvin; in our work we have seen T ∼17000K. Most methods of measuring temperature at ambient are not compatible with experiments under these high-pressure, high-temperature conditions: thermocouples break, melt, or have conductivity properties that differ from ambient where they are calibrated; thermometers would melt; both are too slow. As a result most methods are based on non-contact techniques such as x-ray diffraction broadening, neutron scattering, or optical methods. Of these, optical methods using the visible and near-infrared region of the spectrum are the most commonly used as the sources and detectors are readily available. In the case of optical methods the optical depth, and therefore the measurement location, is limited to the surface. When a window or anvil material is used, heat flows from the sample into the window/anvil. Likewise, if the sample undergoes a change in thermodynamic state, such as expansion upon release, different T may be expected. As a result, the surface or apparent temperature T app measurement will differ from the bulk or interior temperature that is desired. This surface measurement must be related to the bulk measurement using thermal transport models and material models. While it is tempting to conclude that one should just use x-ray methods that directly probe the interior, even these methods have been shown to depend on thermal transport and material models. Regardless of the method used to create the high P − T condition, therefore, we must understand the role of thermal transport and material models upon our interpretation of the T measurement, as well as the errors and uncertainties associated with the choice of models used in the analysis. This is a substantial area of research and this paper is by no means a complete survey of the relevant sources of uncertainty. For example, we have yet to begin to address alternate transport models in a detailed manner (e.g., Tan-Ahrens), or the many models that use additional layers to approximate melting, turbulence, or epitaxial phenomena). Likewise, we have not explored the impact upon uncertainty of thermal models that use temperature-dependent thermal transport coefficients, or the wide range of material models that can be applied. Instead, this paper focuses on using one simple model, the Urtiew-Grover model, to understand the sources of error in T measurement so that we may identify how best to focus future research efforts to return the best improvements and avoid working on over-optimizing a single type of measurement. To this end, we work through some of the best and worst case scenarios for T measurement.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2025

Challenges in the detection of gases in exoplanet atmospheres

Claims of detections of gases in exoplanet atmospheres often rely on comparisons between models including and excluding specific chemical species. However, the space of molecular combinations available for model construction is vast and highly degenerate. Only a limited subset of these combinations is typically explored for any given detection. As a result, apparent detections of trace gases risk being artefacts of incomplete modelling rather than robust identification of atmospheric constituents, especially in the low-signal-to-noise regime. Here, using the sub-Neptune K2-18 b as a case study, we show that recent biosignature claims vanish when the model space is expanded, with numerous alternatives providing equally good or better fits. We demonstrate that the significance of a claimed detection relies on the choice of models being compared, and that model preference does not in itself imply the presence of a specific gas. In conclusion, we recommend treating model comparisons instead as relative adequacy tests, which should be supported by theoretical predictions and complementary metrics of statistical significance to attribute a signal to a particular gas.

Astronomy and AstroPhysics↗
DOE OSTI2025

Correcting for Selection Biases in the Determination of the Hubble Constant from Time-Delay Cosmography

The time delay between multiple images of strongly lensed quasars has been used to infer the Hubble constant. The primary systematic uncertainty for time-delay cosmography is the mass-sheet transform (MST), which preserves the lensing observables while altering the inferred ⁠H 0 . The TDCOSMO collaboration used velocity dispersion measurements of lensed quasars and lensed galaxies to infer that mass sheets are present, which decrease the inferred H 0 by 8 per cent. Here, we test the assumption that the density profiles of galaxy–galaxy and galaxy–quasar lenses are the same. We use a composite star-plus-dark-matter mass profile for the parent deflector population and model the selection function for galaxy–galaxy and galaxy–quasar lenses. We find that a power-law density profile with an MST is a good approximation to a two-component mass profile around the Einstein radius, but we find that galaxy–galaxy lenses have systematically higher mass-sheet components than galaxy–quasar lenses. For individual systems, λ int correlates with the ratio of the half-light radius and Einstein radius of the lens. By propagating these results through the TDCOSMO hierarchical inference code, we find that H 0 is lowered by a further 3 per cent. Using a more recent measurement of velocity dispersions and our fiducial model for selection biases, we infer H 0 = 66 ± 4 (stat) ± 1 (model sys) ± 2 (measurement sys) km s -1 Mpc -1 for the TDCOSMO plus SLACS data set. The first residual systematic error is due to plausible alternative choices in modelling the selection function, and the second is an estimate of the remaining systematic error in the measurement of velocity dispersions for SLACS lenses. Accurate time-delay cosmography requires precise velocity dispersion measurements and accurate calibration of selection biases.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Evaluation of probability density function descriptions for three-component Rayleigh–Taylor mixing

Results from simulations of a three-component Rayleigh–Taylor (RT) mixing problem are presented. These simulations are conducted in heavy–light–heavy and heavy–intermediate–light configurations, and each of these configurations are further considered in high- and low-Reynolds-number regimes. This results in RT-unstable flow with one or both interfaces initially unstable, permitting the influence of problem configuration on the statistical description of three-component RT-driven mixing to be considered. Mass fraction covariances are observed to undergo a sign change through the mixing layer in all four configurations considered. This appears to be unique to the multi-component case and represents another way in which multi-component RT mixing differs from the two-component case. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of joint and marginal probability density function (PDF) descriptions of species concentration are made. Three-, five-, and six-parameter model PDFs are compared against simulation data to assess how accurately they describe the mixing, and it is found that three-component mixing requires at least a five-parameter model PDF to accurately describe the mixing. Notably, the marginal distributions of three-component mixing do not appear to conform to a beta distribution, representing a departure from the classical two-component RT case. In conclusion, statistical neutrality also appears to influence the optimal choice of model PDF, which is found to be a function of problem configuration.

Large-eddy simulation↗
DOE OSTI2025

PowerModel-AI: A First On-the-Fly Machine-Learning Predictor for AC Power Flow Solutions

The real-time creation of machine-learning models via active or on-the-fly learning has attracted considerable interest across various scientific and engineering disciplines. These algorithms enable machines to build models autonomously while remaining operational. Through a series of query strategies, the machine can evaluate whether newly encountered data fall outside the scope of the existing training set. In this study, we introduce PowerModel-AI, an end-to-end machine learning software designed to accurately predict AC power flow solutions. We present detailed justifications for our model design choices and demonstrate that selecting the right input features effectively captures load flow decoupling inherent in power flow equations. Our approach incorporates on-the-fly learning, where power flow calculations are initiated only when the machine detects a need to improve the dataset in regions where the model’s suboptimal performance is based on specific criteria. Otherwise, the existing model is used for power flow predictions. This study includes analyses of five Texas A&M synthetic power grid cases, encompassing the 14-, 30-, 37-, 200-, and 500-bus systems. The training and test datasets were generated using PowerModels.jl, an open-source power flow solver/optimizer developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM, USA.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Interplays In The Rare Earth Element Value Chain

An imbalance problem exists in the rare earth element (REE) market with cerium and lanthanum being more abundant and less valuable than REEs used in permanent magnets such as neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Research has been conducted on new applications for abundant REEs to improve mining economics. However, potential market impacts of these applications on individual REE commodities are unknown. A system dynamics model was built to investigate the impacts of a new aluminum-cerium (Al-Ce) alloy that can theoretically utilize three separate cerium forms: cerium carbonate, cerium oxide, or cerium metal. Cerium carbonate currently possesses the lowest price of the three available forms making it initially the most favorable choice. However, model results showed that cerium oxide could provide the best economics for future Al-Ce alloy deployment because its larger market size buffers major shocks to price.

Severson, Michael [Idaho National Laboratory (INL)↗
DOE OSTI2024

AEPF: Attention-Enabled Point Fusion for 3D Object Detection

Current state-of-the-art (SOTA) LiDAR-only detectors perform well for 3D object detection tasks, but point cloud data are typically sparse and lacks semantic information. Detailed semantic information obtained from camera images can be added with existing LiDAR-based detectors to create a robust 3D detection pipeline. With two different data types, a major challenge in developing multi-modal sensor fusion networks is to achieve effective data fusion while managing computational resources. With separate 2D and 3D feature extraction backbones, feature fusion can become more challenging as these modes generate different gradients, leading to gradient conflicts and suboptimal convergence during network optimization. To this end, we propose a 3D object detection method, Attention-Enabled Point Fusion (AEPF). AEPF uses images and voxelized point cloud data as inputs and estimates the 3D bounding boxes of object locations as outputs. An attention mechanism is introduced to an existing feature fusion strategy to improve 3D detection accuracy and two variants are proposed. These two variants, AEPF-Small and AEPF-Large, address different needs. AEPF-Small, with a lightweight attention module and fewer parameters, offers fast inference. AEPF-Large, with a more complex attention module and increased parameters, provides higher accuracy than baseline models. Experimental results on the KITTI validation set show that AEPF-Small maintains SOTA 3D detection accuracy while inferencing at higher speeds. AEPF-Large achieves mean average precision scores of 91.13, 79.06, and 76.15 for the car class’s easy, medium, and hard targets, respectively, in the KITTI validation set. Results from ablation experiments are also presented to support the choice of model architecture.

Chemistry↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Capacitated p -hub approach for park-and-ride facility location problem under nested logit demand function: polyhedral approaches

By generalizing the unconstrained p-hub approach for the park-and-ride (P&R) facility location problem under the multinomial logit demand function, the capacitated p-hub approach for the problem under the nested logit demand function captures a broader range of real-world cases. To solve this problem optimally, we introduce a mixed-integer linear program and accelerate its solution by enhancing the branch-and-cut procedure. To address the problem at a large scale, we introduce two other polyhedral approaches: variable neighborhood search (VNS) and adaptive randomized rounding (ARR). Downtown areas in Seoul have a high modal share of public transportation and congested road traffic, yet P&R has not been widely implemented. Therefore, we apply the ARR procedure to solve a real-world problem using traffic and geographic data from the Seoul metropolitan area. ARR performs better than VNS and addresses real-world cases. The solutions obtained by ARR present a phased expansion plan that encourages policymakers to start installing a small number of P&Rs immediately.

Capacitated p-hub approach↗
DOE OSTI2026

Astrocyte Reactivity by Alcohol Dependence in the Central Amygdala

Astrocytes play essential roles in the brain, but prolonged insult can result in the loss or diminishment of homeostatic functions and increased neuroinflammatory response. The central amygdala (CeA) is an important limbic region in reward and stress responsivity as well as in the development of alcohol dependence. Using a multi-omics approach with Aldh1l1-EGFP/Rpl10a mice and the chronic intermittent ethanol – two-bottle choice exposure model, we have characterized the translational response of CeA astrocytes, as well as the proteomic and phosphoproteomic changes in dependent, non-dependent, and naïve mice. We identified astrocyte-specific alterations in neuroimmune functions and antioxidant/oxidative stress pathways in dependent animals while non-dependent EtOH drinking altered cytoskeletal plasticity related pathways. Proteomic analysis showed down-regulation of astrocyte physiological functions in dependent animals while phosphoproteomic analysis identified cytoskeleton remodeling in both dependent and non-dependent animals suggesting the development of a reactive astrocyte phenotype. Astrocyte morphological reconstruction showed increased CeA astrocyte complexity in dependent and non-dependent groups compared to naïve mice. The astrocyte-specific increase in neuroimmune functions, down-regulation of astrocyte homeostatic functions, alteration in protein phosphorylation-mediated cytoskeleton remodeling, and increased astrocyte complexity demonstrate EtOH induced astrocyte activation in the CeA and suggest the presence of both adaptive and maladaptive reactive astrocytes. These findings highlight the roles CeA astrocytes play in the progression of alcohol intake to dependence and are the first step in the identification of novel astrocyte-specific therapeutic approaches for alcohol use disorder through the potentiation of adaptive changes and inhibition of maladaptive changes in astrocytes.

Hashimoto, Joel↗
DOE OSTI2026

Toward Chemical Accuracy for Chemi- and Physisorption with an Efficient Density Functional

Understanding molecular adsorption on surfaces underpins many problems in chemistry and materials science. Accurately and efficiently describing the adsorption has been a challenging task for first-principles methods as the process can involve both short-range chemical bond formations and long-range physical interactions, e.g., van der Waals (vdW) interaction. Density functional theory presents an appealing choice for modeling adsorption reactions, although calculations with many exchange-correlation density functional approximations struggle to accurately describe both chemical and physical molecular adsorptions. Here, we propose an efficient density functional approximation that is accurate for both chemical and physical adsorption by concurrently optimizing its semilocal component and the long-range vdW correction against the prototypical adsorption CO/Pt(111) and Ar 2 binding energy curve. The resulting function opens the door to accurate and efficient modeling of general molecular adsorption.

adsorption↗
DOE OSTI2025

Exogeological inferences from white dwarf pollutants: the impact of stellar physics

Many white dwarfs have accreted material from their own planetary systems. These objects can be used to infer the composition of exoplanetary material and identify evidence for key geological processes. However, the white dwarf atmospheric physics distorts the inferred material composition away from the true composition, mainly through differential atomic diffusion of the accreted metals. Correcting for this effect is essential, but is dependent on various physical assumptions associated with the white dwarf itself. We first focus on the effect of assumptions related to convective overshoot and thermohaline mixing on the atomic diffusion time-scales. For white dwarfs with H-dominated atmospheres between 12000 K and 18000 K⁠, we find that including a complete treatment of convective overshoot decreases the inferred Fe and O abundances in accreted material. For these white dwarfs, we also find that including thermohaline mixing decreases Fe and O abundances. For He-dominated systems, the effect of convective overshoot is comparatively minor. We then explore the overall effect of other physical assumptions by comparing publicly available grids of diffusion time-scales. We find that the choice of model grid can have a large impact for white dwarfs with He-dominated atmospheres, notably on the inferred core to mantle ratio of accreted material. We identify several systems for which the geological interpretation is robust against these systematics. We also present a ‘discrepancy metric’ which can be used to estimate the potential impact of changing the stellar physics without requiring detailed modelling.

Astronomy and AstroPhysics↗
DOE OSTI2025

First Measurement of 87 Rb( α , xn ) Cross Sections at Weak r -process Energies in Supernova ν -driven Ejecta to Investigate Elemental Abundances in Low-metallicity Stars

Observed abundances of Z ∼ 40 elements in metal-poor stars vary from star to star, indicating that the rapid and slow neutron capture processes may not contribute alone to the synthesis of elements beyond iron. The weak r-process was proposed to produce Z ∼ 40 elements in a subset of old stars. Thought to occur in the ν-driven ejecta of a core-collapse supernova, ( α, xn ) reactions would drive the nuclear flow toward heavier masses at T = 2−5 GK. However, current comparisons between modeled and observed yields do not bring satisfactory insights into the stellar environment, mainly due to the uncertainties of the nuclear physics inputs where the dispersion in a given reaction rate often exceeds 1 order of magnitude. Involved rates are calculated with the statistical model where the choice of an α -optical-model potential ( α OMP) leads to such a poor precision. The first experiment on 87 Rb( α, xn ) reactions at weak r -process energies is reported here. Total inclusive cross sections were assessed at E c.m. = 8.1−13 MeV (3.7−7.6 GK) with the active target MUlti-Sampling Ionization Chamber. With an N = 50 seed nucleus, the measured values agree with statistical model estimates using the α OMP Atomki-V2. A reevaluated reaction rate was incorporated into new nucleosynthesis calculations, focusing on ν-driven ejecta conditions known to be sensitive to this specific rate. These conditions were found to fail to reproduce the lighter heavy element abundances in metal-poor stars.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Resolution requirements for high-speed droplet impact along a rigid wall

The mechanical and thermal loads that are produced on high-speed projectiles from a droplet are key in the projectile development.To accurately predict the pressure produced along the wall surface during impact, it is important to correctly model the air/water interface of the droplet. Novel modeling approaches such as the Phase-Field enable control of the (numerical) interface thickness. However, the interplay between the grid resolution (including potential adaptive mesh refinement) and the interface thickness is unclear. In this work, the resolution requirements for numerical simulations of a two-dimensional cylindrical water droplet impacting a rigid wall at Mach four are computationally investigated. Numerical simulations are performed using a second-order accurate scheme with adaptive mesh refinement and a Phase-Field interface model. The choice of numerical interface thickness and resolution parameters affects the maximum pressure and location of the maximum pressure along the wall. The overall maximum pressure does not converge even at high resolutions. The number of levels and thickness (number of cells across the interface) play a role in obtaining a well behaved solution.

Burrell, E.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Human limits in machine learning: prediction of potato yield and disease using soil microbiome data

Abstract Background The preservation of soil health is a critical challenge in the 21st century due to its significant impact on agriculture, human health, and biodiversity. We provide one of the first comprehensive investigations into the predictive potential of machine learning models for understanding the connections between soil and biological phenotypes. We investigate an integrative framework performing accurate machine learning-based prediction of plant performance from biological, chemical, and physical properties of the soil via two models: random forest and Bayesian neural network. Results Prediction improves when we add environmental features, such as soil properties and microbial density, along with microbiome data. Different preprocessing strategies show that human decisions significantly impact predictive performance. We show that the naive total sum scaling normalization that is commonly used in microbiome research is one of the optimal strategies to maximize predictive power. Also, we find that accurately defined labels are more important than normalization, taxonomic level, or model characteristics. ML performance is limited when humans can’t classify samples accurately. Lastly, we provide domain scientists via a full model selection decision tree to identify the human choices that optimize model prediction power. Conclusions Our study highlights the importance of incorporating diverse environmental features and careful data preprocessing in enhancing the predictive power of machine learning models for soil and biological phenotype connections. This approach can significantly contribute to advancing agricultural practices and soil health management.

Aghdam, Rosa↗
DOE OSTI2025

Dark energy survey: Modeling strategy for multiprobe cluster cosmology and validation for the full six-year dataset

Here, we introduce an updated To&Krause2021 model for joint analyses of cluster abundances and large-scale two-point correlations of weak lensing and galaxy and cluster clustering (termed CL+3×2 pt analysis) and validate that this model meets the systematic accuracy requirements of analyses with the statistical precision of the final Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 6 (Y6) dataset. The validation program consists of two distinct approaches, (i) identification of modeling and parametrization choices and impact studies using simulated analyses with each possible model misspecification and (ii) end-to-end validation using mock catalogs from customized Cardinal simulations that incorporate realistic galaxy populations and DES-Y6-specific galaxy and cluster selection and photometric redshift modeling, which are the key observational systematics. In combination, these validation tests indicate that the model presented here meets the accuracy requirements of DES-Y6 for CL+3×2 pt based on a large list of tests for known systematics. In addition, we also validate that the model is sufficient for several other data combinations: the CL+GC subset of this data vector (excluding galaxy–galaxy lensing and cosmic shear two-point statistics) and the CL+3×2 pt+BAO+SN (combination of CL+3×2 pt with the previously published Y6 DES baryonic acoustic oscillation and Y5 supernovae data).

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗