Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Data exploration”

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 OSTI2022

Revisit NGC 5466 tidal stream with Gaia , SDSS/SEGUE, and LAMOST

ABSTRACT By mining the data from Gaia Early Data Release 3, Sloan Digital Sky Survey/Sloan Extension for Galactic Understanding and Exploration Data Release 16, and Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope Data Release 8, 11 member stars of the NGC 5466 tidal stream are detected and 7 of them are newly identified. To reject contaminators, a variety of cuts are applied in sky position, colour–magnitude diagram, metallicity, proper motion, and radial velocity. We compare our data to a mock stream generated by modelling the cluster’s disruption under a smooth Galactic potential plus the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). The concordant trends in phase space between the model and observations imply that the stream might have been perturbed by the LMC. The two most distant stars among the 11 detected members trace the stream’s length to 60° of sky, supporting and extending the previous length of 45°. Given that NGC 5466 is so distant and potentially has a longer tail than previously thought, we expect that the NGC 5466 tidal stream could be a useful tool in constraining the Milky Way gravitational field.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

High-Fidelity Solar Irradiance Data: Simple Access to State-of-the-Art Information Accelerates Southeast Asia's Clean Energy Economic Transformation

High quality, robust, and reliable renewable energy resource data is foundational to climate-smart decision making, evidence-based policy planning, and clean energy investment mobilization. USAID and NREL, through the Advanced Energy Partnership for Asia, are expanding access to this critical resource data by providing free, high-fidelity solar resource data for Southeast Asia through the RE Data Explorer platform. This brief highlights several ways the Southeast Asia solar resource data has been used for power system planning and project development in the region.

Advanced Energy Partnership for Asia↗
DOE OSTI2023

High-Resolution Southeast Asia Wind Resource Data Set

Well informed decision-making is a key part of integrating variable renewable energy into the global energy marketplace. USAID and NREL, through the Advanced Energy Partnership for Asia, are expanding access to critical resource data by providing free, high-fidelity time-series wind resource data for Southeast Asia through the RE Data Explorer platform. This brief highlights the development of the Southeast Asia wind resource data set and discusses the impacts of this data.

Advanced Energy Partnership for Asia↗
DOE OSTI2026

Eta Fragmentation Functions Revisited

We revisit the extraction of parton-to-eta meson fragmentation functions at next-to-leading order accuracy in QCD in the light of the recent hadroproduction measurements in proton-proton collisions obtained by the PHENIX, LHCb, and ALICE collaborations. In addition to an increased precision, the data explore complementary rapidity ranges and center-of-mass system energies. The analysis exploits the theoretical scale dependence to ease tensions among the data sets at different energies that are potentially caused by QCD corrections beyond the next-to-leading order. The resulting set of fragmentation functions yields a consistent description of all available data. Estimates of uncertainties are obtained with the Monte Carlo replica method.

FOS: Physical sciences↗
DOE OSTI2024

Subsurface Energy Systems Mapping Inquiry Tool (MapIT)

The Subsurface Energy Systems Mapping Inquiry Tool (MapIT) is an online web mapping tool designed to help users discover available public-sourced data to facilitate data exploration for subsurface energy exploration and characterization efforts for resource identification (e.g. critical minerals, hydrocarbons, geothermal) as well as injection of geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (e.g. enhanced oil recovery, saline storage, etc.). Modules within the tool curate data related to geology, faults, fractures, injection and confining zones, hydrologic information, groundwater, groundwater wells, geomechanical and petrophysical data, and geochemical data. User documentation on how to use the tool is also provided. Data have been collected from authoritative national, state, and local sources and made available in this tool. The data is also available as a data catalog and Esri Geodatabase at: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/mapit-database Disclaimer: There is no guarantee of completeness or appropriateness for individual user’s requirements. Use of this tool is solely at the discretion of the user. See full Federal Disclaimer for further information (https://netl.doe.gov/home/disclaimer). This project was funded by the United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, in part, through a site support contract. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor the support contractor, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. https://www.netl.doe.gov/home/disclaimer

Carbon Sequestration↗
DOE OSTI2026

MSD CoP Webinar: "Advances in MSD-LIVE to Support the MSD Community of Practice"

Context: This webinar was hosted by the MultiSector Dynamics Community of Practice (MSD CoP; https://multisectordynamics.org). Advances in MSD-LIVE to Support the MSD Community of Practice Presenters: Casey Burleyson and Zoe Guillen (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) Abstract: The MultiSector Dynamics Living, Intuitive, Value-adding, Environment (MSD-LIVE; msdlive.org) is a cloud-based data management system and advanced computing platform that enables MSD researchers to document and archive their data, run their models and analysis tools, and share their data, software, and workflows within the MSD Community of Practice. Recently, several high-profile datasets have attracted many new users to MSD-LIVE. This webinar has two goals: 1) To refamiliarize the MSD community and new users with the components of the platform (e.g., the data repository, model training notebooks, and data dashboards) and to highlight examples of how these components are advancing MSD science and 2) To demonstrate new features in v3 of the platform, released in late 2025. The main new feature in v3 is the ability to interactively explore data in MSD-LIVE without downloading it. MSD-LIVE users can now click a button in our data repository and launch a blank Jupyter notebook with access to the underlying data on AWS. Users can use the notebook to write analysis, visualization, or subsetting routines that process the data directly on the AWS cloud. We also added a GitHub integration feature that allows users to share analysis or visualization code they develop with the community of MSD-LIVE users. The webinar will wrap up with a look at what's coming next for MSD-LIVE in 2026. Moderator: Patrick M. Reed (MSD CoP Facilitation Team) This webinar was held on: May 12th, 2026 from 1-2 PM EST.

Open Science↗
DOE OSTI2024

Rapid Detection of Anomalies in Battery Energy Storage System Data

Data analytics is pivotal in assessing the technical characteristics and performance of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), underpinning BESS modeling, optimization, and control. However, raw datasets frequently harbor anomalies from measurement errors and equipment malfunctions, impacting BESS reliability and analysis accuracy To address the challenge, this paper presents a novel methodology for the rapid detection of anomalous charge or discharge cycles within BESS operational data, expediting the cleaning process while ensuring data integrity. We’ve collected diverse and comprehensive real-world BESS operational datasets in collaboration with the Electric Power Research Institute and multiple Washington State utilities. These datasets serve dual roles: enabling comprehensive data exploration and analysis for understanding underlying challenges and method development, while also acting as a vital validation resource, demonstrating practical effectiveness. The proposed method detects anomalies and aids in their resolution, improving system performance characterization precision. It also reveals recurring data anomaly sources, offering insights for data collection and handling enhancement. Practitioners can gain valuable insights from the identified anomalous cycles in the real-world datasets along with the investigative process for root cause analyses and essential data cleaning steps.

Crawford, Aladsair J.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Quantum Computing and Visualization: A Disruptive Technological Change Ahead

The focus of this Visualization Viewpoints article is to provide some background on quantum computing (QC), to explore ideas related to how visualization helps in understanding QC, and examine how QC might be useful for visualization with the growth and maturation of both technologies in the future. In a quickly evolving technology landscape, QC is emerging as a promising pathway to overcome the growth limits in classical computing. In some cases, QC platforms offer the potential to vastly outperform the familiar classical computer by solving problems more quickly or that may be intractable on any known classical platform. As further performance gains for classical computing platforms are limited by diminishing Moore’s Law scaling, QC platforms might be viewed as a potential successor to the current field of exascale-class platforms. Importantly, while present-day QC hardware platforms are still limited in scale, the field of quantum computing is robust and rapidly advancing in terms of hardware capabilities, software environments for developing quantum algorithms, and educational programs for training the next generation of scientists and engineers. After a brief introduction to QC concepts, the focus of this article is to explore the interplay between the fields of visualization and QC. First, visualization has played a role in QC by providing the means to show representations of the quantum state of single-qubits in superposition states and multiple-qubits in entangled states. Second, there are a number of ways in which the field of visual data exploration and analysis may potentially benefit from this disruptive new technology though there are challenges going forward.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
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 OSTI2023

Large-Scale Inference of Multivariate Regression for Heavy-Tailed and Asymmetric Data

Large-scale multivariate regression is a fundamental statistical tool with a wide range of applications. Here, this study considers the problem of simultaneously testing a large number of general linear hypotheses, encompassing covariate-effect analysis, analysis of variance, and model comparisons. The challenge that accompanies a large number of tests is the ubiquitous presence of heavy-tailed and/or highly skewed measurement noise, which is the main reason for the failure of conventional least squares-based methods. For large-scale multivariate regression, we develop a set of robust inference methods to explore data features such as heavy tailedness and skewness, which are not visible to least squares methods. The new testing procedure is based on the data-adaptive Huber regression and a new covariance estimator of regression estimates. Under mild conditions, we show that our methods produce consistent estimates of the false discovery proportion. Extensive numerical experiments and an empirical study on quantitative linguistics demonstrate the advantage of the proposed method over many state-of-the-art methods when the data are generated from heavy-tailed and/or skewed distributions.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Immersive Analytics in Critical Spatial Domains: From Materials to Energy Systems

Immersive analytics (IA) leverages virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality to transform how users interact with complex datasets across domains such as science, industry, and education. These immersive technologies offer spatial and multimodal environments that foster intuitive exploration, but they also introduce challenges related to cognitive load, interface design, and system performance. Here, this article presents a comprehensive review of visualization techniques, interaction models, and multimodal inputs utilized in IA. Drawing on case studies in scientific visualization, industrial training, and educational communication, we examine both the potential and limitations of current systems. Finally, we propose future research directions, focusing on real‐time collaboration, adaptive user interfaces, and scalable data exploration strategies to advance the field.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2026

A critical review on additive manufacturing of refractory alloys from a data analytics perspective- beyond nickel-based superalloys

Refractory alloys (RAs) are promising materials due to their exceptional physicochemical properties, but most research remains at the laboratory scale. For broader adoption, advancements in manufacturing are essential. Because their high stability makes conventional methods like machining and casting difficult, additive manufacturing (AM) is emerging as an effective approach for fabricating refractory alloy components. However, AM's repeated non-equilibrium thermal cycles introduce undesired features (e.g. defects, anisotropic microstructures, and residual stresses), which are magnified due to RAs’ unique properties. This paper comprehensively reviews the state-of-the-art methods of AM for refractory alloys. It explores data analytics techniques to establish design rules based on multi-fidelity experimental and computational methods. Furthermore, it investigates integrated, collaborative efforts to harmonise standalone databases, information, knowledge, and predictive models at multi-physics, multi-stage, and multi-scale. Unlike the existing literature that focuses primarily on material systems or process fundamentals, this work provides an integrated perspective on AM of refractory alloys from a data analytics standpoint, highlighting the roles of integrated computational materials engineering (ICME), verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification (VV&UQ), and digital twin-driven qualification in overcoming data scarcity and accelerating rapid qualification.

Additive manufacturing↗
DOE OSTI2024

Electronic Visualization Laboratory's 50th Anniversary Retrospective: Look to the Future, Build on the Past

September 2023 marks the 50th anniversary of the Electronic Visualization Laboratory (EVL) at University of Illinois Chicago (UIC). EVL's introduction of the CAVE Automatic Virtual Environment in 1992, the first widely replicated, projection-based, walk-in, virtual-reality (VR) system in the world, put EVL at the forefront of collaborative, immersive data exploration and analytics. However, the journey did not begin then. Since its founding in 1973, EVL has been developing tools and techniques for real-time, interactive visualizations—pillars of VR. But EVL's culture is also relevant to its successes, as it has always been an interdisciplinary lab that fosters teamwork, where each person's expertise contributes to the development of the necessary tools, hardware, system software, applications, and human interface models to solve problems. Over the years, as multidisciplinary collaborations evolved and advanced scientific instruments and data resources were distributed globally, the need to access and share data and visualizations while working with colleagues, local and remote, synchronous and asynchronous, also became important fields of study. This paper is a retrospective of EVL's past 50 years that surveys the many networked, immersive, collaborative visualization and VR systems and applications it developed and deployed, as well as lessons learned and future plans.

Johnson, Andrew E.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Advanced Interactive 3D Visualization Tool for Customizable Analyses of Tomography Datasets in Material Science

Current methods for visualizing and analyzing 3D tomography datasets in materials science often lack the interactivity and depth required for detailed structural insights. This limitation restricts a researchers' ability to accurately interpret complex data, which is critical for advancing material innovations and understanding structural properties. To address this issue, we have developed a novel, web-based interactive 3D visualization and analysis tool from the Trame framework that offers customizable features to enhance data interpretability. The tool allows users to adjust parameters such as visible range, slice planes, data rotation, and layering, providing a more detailed and dynamic view of complex structures. Its user-friendly web interface increases the accessibility and ease of use for both novice and experienced researchers, to visualize large volumetric datasets. The tool supports a diverse range of data formats, making it versatile for various research applications. Unique capabilities include real-time data manipulation, automated feature detection, context-sensitive feedback, and real-time volume calculations and distributions per sliced region or layer, alongside the ability to quickly generate high-quality screenshots and videos for presentations and reports. These advancements offer a comprehensive solution for enhanced 3D data exploration, significantly improving the analysis process and communication of results in materials science.

36 - MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2024

VIBES: a workflow for annotating and visualizing viral sequences integrated into bacterial genomes

Abstract Bacteriophages are viruses that infect bacteria. Many bacteriophages integrate their genomes into the bacterial chromosome and become prophages. Prophages may substantially burden or benefit host bacteria fitness, acting in some cases as parasites and in others as mutualists. Some prophages have been demonstrated to increase host virulence. The increasing ease of bacterial genome sequencing provides an opportunity to deeply explore prophage prevalence and insertion sites. Here we present VIBES (Viral Integrations in Bacterial genomES), a workflow intended to automate prophage annotation in complete bacterial genome sequences. VIBES provides additional context to prophage annotations by annotating bacterial genes and viral proteins in user-provided bacterial and viral genomes. The VIBES pipeline is implemented as a Nextflow-driven workflow, providing a simple, unified interface for execution on local, cluster and cloud computing environments. For each step of the pipeline, a container including all necessary software dependencies is provided. VIBES produces results in simple tab-separated format and generates intuitive and interactive visualizations for data exploration. Despite VIBES’s primary emphasis on prophage annotation, its generic alignment-based design allows it to be deployed as a general-purpose sequence similarity search manager. We demonstrate the utility of the VIBES prophage annotation workflow by searching for 178 Pf phage genomes across 1072 Pseudomonas spp. genomes.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

The Energetics of the Central Engine in the Powerful Quasar 3C 298

The compact steep-spectrum radio source 3C 298 (redshift of 1.44) has the largest 178 MHz luminosity in the Third Cambridge Revised Catalogue (3CR); its radio lobes are among the most luminous in the universe. The plasma state of the radio lobes is modeled with the aid of interferometric radio observations (in particular, the new Low Frequency Array observation and archival MERLIN data) and archival single-station data. It is estimated that the long-term time-averaged jet power required to fill these lobes with leptonic plasma is $\overline{Q}\,\approx 1.28\pm 0.51\times {10}^{47}\,\mathrm{erg}\,{{\rm{s}}}^{-1}$, rivaling the largest time-averaged jet powers from any quasar. Supporting this notion of extraordinary jet power is a 0.5–10 keV luminosity of ≈ 5.2 × 10 46 erg s –1 , comparable to luminous blazars, yet there is no other indication of strong relativistic beaming. We combine two new high signal-to-noise ratio optical spectroscopic observations from the Hobby-Eberly Telescope with archival Hubble Space Telescope, Two Micron All Sky Survey, and Galaxy Evolutionary Explorer data to compute a bolometric luminosity from the accretion flow of L bol ≈ 1.55 ± 0.15 × 10 47 erg s –1 . The ratio, $\overline{Q}/{L}_{\mathrm{bol}}\approx 1$, is the approximate upper limit for quasars. Characteristic of a large $\overline{Q}/{L}_{\mathrm{bol}}$, we find an extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) spectrum that is very steep (the "EUV deficit" of powerful radio quasars relative to radio-quiet quasars), and this weak ionizing continuum is likely a contributing factor to the relatively small equivalent widths of the broad emission lines in this quasar.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗