Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “text extraction”

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.

64 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Development of message passing-based graph convolutional networks for classifying cancer pathology reports

Abstract Background Applying graph convolutional networks (GCN) to the classification of free-form natural language texts leveraged by graph-of-words features (TextGCN) was studied and confirmed to be an effective means of describing complex natural language texts. However, the text classification models based on the TextGCN possess weaknesses in terms of memory consumption and model dissemination and distribution. In this paper, we present a fast message passing network (FastMPN), implementing a GCN with message passing architecture that provides versatility and flexibility by allowing trainable node embedding and edge weights, helping the GCN model find the better solution. We applied the FastMPN model to the task of clinical information extraction from cancer pathology reports, extracting the following six properties: main site, subsite, laterality, histology, behavior, and grade. Results We evaluated the clinical task performance of the FastMPN models in terms of micro- and macro-averaged F1 scores. A comparison was performed with the multi-task convolutional neural network (MT-CNN) model. Results show that the FastMPN model is equivalent to or better than the MT-CNN. Conclusions Our implementation revealed that our FastMPN model, which is based on the PyTorch platform, can train a large corpus (667,290 training samples) with 202,373 unique words in less than 3 minutes per epoch using one NVIDIA V100 hardware accelerator. Our experiments demonstrated that using this implementation, the clinical task performance scores of information extraction related to tumors from cancer pathology reports were highly competitive.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Text Mining for Process–Structure–Properties Relationships in Metals

With the advent of large language models (LLMs), the vast unstructured text within millions of academic papers is increasingly accessible for materials discovery—although significant challenges remain. While LLMs offer promising few- and zero-shot learning capabilities, particularly valuable in the materials domain where expert annotations are scarce, general-purpose LLMs often fail to address key materials-specific queries without further adaptation. To bridge this gap, fine-tuning LLMs on human-labeled data is essential for effective structured knowledge extraction (Liu in The Importance of Human-Labeled Data in the Era of LLMs, 2023). Here, in this study, we introduce a novel annotation schema designed to extract generic process–structure–properties relationships from scientific literature. We demonstrate the utility of this approach using a dataset of 128 abstracts, with annotations drawn from two distinct domains: high-temperature materials (Domain I) and uncertainty quantification in simulating materials microstructure (Domain II). Initially, we developed a conditional random field (CRF) model based on MatBERT—a domain-specific BERT variant—and evaluated its performance on Domain I. Subsequently, we compared this model with a fine-tuned LLM (GPT-4o from OpenAI) under identical conditions. Our results indicate that fine-tuning LLMs can significantly improve entity extraction performance over the BERT-CRF baseline on Domain I. However, when additional examples from Domain II were incorporated, the performance of the BERT-CRF model became comparable to that of the GPT-4o model. These findings underscore the potential of our schema for structured knowledge extraction and highlight the complementary strengths of both modeling approaches.

Materials science↗
DOE OSTI2025

Datum: A Scientific Metadata Catalog

The data catalog market is currently flooded with a myriad of different products, but none serve the scientific community well. There are cloud-native tools like Databricks, Snowflake,to on-premise solutions like Collibra and Datahub. The common failing of all these tools however, is their inability to serve the scientific data community directly. Most catalogs are targeted towards financial, health, or user data - not sensor or scientific domain data. They also prioritize integrations that often don’t exist or are just starting to be used in the scientific realm - all while ignoring common scientific tools and file types. Datum is a catalog which targets the scientific data directly, including the tools and networks in which those tools are used. We work with the producers and consumers of the data where they are, targeting cloud and on-premise with a focus on classified networks. Datum is an Erlang/Elixir application. Technical Features Note: The features listed below are still under development and may change, slightly, upon final delivery of the product. File Formats - Datum has the ability to read additional metadata and provides processing pipelines for the following file formats: Plain Text, PDF, LaTeX, HTML, Open Document Format (.odt), XML, CSV/TSV (and other standard delimiters), OpenDocument Database and Spreadsheets, Geo-Referenced TIFF, Common Data Format, HDF/HDF5, LabView TDMS, Excel, DeltaTables, Parquet, Apache Iceberg, Apache Hudi and many others. Metadata Collection - Scanners for the local and networked file systems and cloud storage providers. Network integration with common databases such as MSSQL and MySQL. User Plugin System - Users are able to provide either file processing, metadata extraction, or sampling plugins in the programming language of their choice. Authentication/Authorization -: OIDC integration, SCIM provisioning and EntraID integration out of the box. Full user and group management system with a “least privilege” operating mode. Governance - Customizable data governance platform; dictate and enforce required metadata, enforce data embargos, and enforce user agreements and NDAs before data access. Ability to create health checks on data, rejecting abandoned or poorly curated data and automatically removing it from the search index. Ability for users to submit corrections. Search - Semantic search is a first class citizen. No licenses to expensive, external software required. Integrated use of vectors and vector-based search allows for AI agent integration at all levels of operation. Metadata Model - Display and control data’s lineage and connections to other data and data directories. Data is modeled after a filesystem - an organization instantly recognizable and navigable by most any user. CLI and SDK - Ships with a Command Line Interface (CLI) tool and with a fully-featured Python SDK. This allows for rapid and programmatic use of Datum by every level of user. Minimal Infrastructure - Datum ships as a single executable file and can be run on any operating system and most CPU architectures. Datum has no reliance on external databases, search indexing tools, or other outside services - and it runs equally well on edge computing devices, cloud services, or in a clustered HPC environment.

darrington, john↗
DOE OSTI2026

Space-time evolution of particle emission in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{\text{NN}}} = 5.02$ TeV with 3D kaon femtoscopy

The measurement of three-dimensional femtoscopic correlations between identical charged kaons (K ± K ± ) produced in p–Pb collisions at center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair $\sqrt{{s}_{\text{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV with ALICE at the LHC is presented for the first time. This measurement, supplementary to those in pp and Pb–Pb collisions, allows understanding the particle-production mechanisms at different charged-particle multiplicities and provides information on the dynamics of the source of particles created in p–Pb collisions, for which a general consensus does not yet exist. It is shown that the measured source sizes increase with charged-particle multiplicity and decrease with increasing pair transverse momentum. These trends for K ± K ± are similar to the ones observed earlier in identical charged-pion and ${\text{K}}_{\text{s}}^{0}{\text{K}}_{\text{s}}^{0}$ correlations in Pb–Pb collisions at various energies and in π ± π ± correlations in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{\text{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV. At comparable multiplicity, the source sizes measured in p–Pb collisions agree within uncertainties with those observed in pp collisions, and there is an indication that they are smaller than those observed in Pb–Pb collisions. The obtained results are also compared with predictions from the hadronic interaction model EPOS 3, which tends to underestimate the source size for the most central collisions and agrees with the data for semicentral and peripheral events. Furthermore, the time of maximal emission for kaons is extracted. It turns out to be comparable with the value obtained in highly peripheral Pb–Pb collisions at the same energy, indicating that the kaon emission evolution is similar to that in p–Pb collisions.

Heavy Ion Experiments↗
DOE OSTI2025

Comprehensive Database of Environmental Mitigations Extracted from FERC-Licensed Hydropower Projects Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques, 1998-2023

This dataset provides a comprehensive inventory of environmental mitigation measures required by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed hydropower facilities from 461 licenses that were issued from 1998 to 2023. These licenses constitute 446 of the 1015 FERC projects that were active at the end of 2023. 17,612 mentions of environmental mitigations were identified and categorized in 128 unique categories. Mitigations were identified using a Natural Language Processing (NLP) approach, specifically with a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformer (BERT) model. Model-derived results were then reviewed and updated by a subject matter expert as needed. This dataset introduces important enhancements to previous efforts to inventory environmental mitigations, such as including associated license text for each mitigation, tracking the number of instances a mitigation was identified within a license, and providing improved location information. These enhancements significantly expand the dataset's utility, offering greater analytical capabilities and ensuring reproducibility. The dataset is downloadable as a zip file containing the metadata and dataset files.

Ruggles, Thomas [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (OR↗
DOE OSTI2025

Search for a new scalar resonance decaying to a Higgs boson and another new scalar particle in the final state with two bottom quarks and two photons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV

A search is presented for a new scalar resonance, X, decaying to a standard model Higgs boson and another new scalar particle, Y, in the final state where the Higgs boson decays to a $\text{b}\overline{\text{b} }$ pair, while the Y particle decays to a pair of photons. The search is performed in the mass range 240–1000 GeV for the resonance X, and in the mass range 70–800 GeV for the particle Y, using proton-proton collision data collected by the CMS experiment at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 132 fb −1 . In general, the data are found to be compatible with the standard model expectation. Observed (expected) upper limits at 95% confidence level on the product of the production cross section and the relevant branching fraction are extracted for the X → YH process, and are found to be within the range of 0.05–2.69 (0.08–1.94) fb, depending on m X and m Y . The most significant deviation from the background-only hypothesis is observed for X and Y masses of 300 and 77 GeV, respectively, with a local (global) significance of 3.33 (0.65) standard deviations.

Beyond Standard Model↗
DOE OSTI2025

Derivation of physical equations for high-speed laser welding using large language models

It is challenging to formulate complex physical phenomena that occur in a manufacturing process, particularly when the available data are limited, rendering conventional data-driven approaches ineffective. This study aims to predict humping onset in high-speed laser welding by introducing a novel framework, namely text-to-equations generative pre-trained transformer (T2EGPT). This method leverages the capabilities of large language models (LLMs), in combination with sparse experimental data and enriched literature data, to derive an interpretable and generalizable equation for predicting humping initiation. By capturing key correlations among physical parameters, T2EGPT generates a compact and dimensionless expression that accurately predicts hump formation. The equation reveals that humping arises from the interplay between inertia-driven backward melt flow and capillary-driven surface stabilization, where inertial forces drive molten metal backward and capillary forces resist surface deformation. Furthermore, compared to traditional data-driven models, T2EGPT demonstrates enhanced predictive accuracy and cross-material transferability. More broadly, this study highlights the potential of LLMs to integrate textual information with data-driven discovery, enabling the extraction of physical laws in data-scarce scientific domains.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

NEPATEC2.0: NEPA Text Corpus v2.0

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), is a major environmental law in the United States, requiring Federal agencies to consider and document potential environmental impacts before deciding on a proposed action. Modernization of NEPA and permitting processes faces significant challenges due to the lack of standardized formats and interoperable systems for organizing and sharing NEPA-related information across agencies. Much of the information gathered during NEPA reviews is written into documents such as categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, and environmental impact statements, then filed in predominately independent agency file stores that may or may not be publicly accessible. The application of metadata and data standards, such as those recommended by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to NEPA documents offers a shared vocabulary and structure for key entities like projects, processes, and documents that can streamline information exchange and enhance collaboration across systems. In this work, we publicly release NEPATEC2.0, an expanded corpus of NEPA documents with associated metadata. NEPATEC2.0 encompasses approximately 120,000 documents from 60,000 projects prepared by more than 60 different agencies. Modeled to align with CEQ metadata standards, NEPATEC2.0 promotes consistency in environmental reviews and supports the ongoing effort to modernize permitting technologies by facilitating more transparent, efficient, and data-driven decision-making. Importantly, NEPATEC2.0 demonstrates the possibilities and limitations of large language model-based prompting to extract information from NEPA documents at scale.

environmental review↗
DOE OSTI2025

NEPATEC v2.0: Standardized Metadata and Text Corpus of National Environmental Policy Act Documents

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), is a major environmental law in the United States, requiring Federal agencies to consider and document potential environmental impacts before deciding on a proposed action. Modernization of NEPA and permitting processes faces significant challenges due to the lack of standardized formats and interoperable systems for organizing and sharing NEPA-related information across agencies. Much of the information gathered during NEPA reviews is written into documents such as categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, and environmental impact statements, then filed in predominately independent agency file stores that may or may not be publicly accessible. The application of metadata and data standards, such as those recommended by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to NEPA documents offers a shared vocabulary and structure for key entities like projects, processes, and documents that can streamline information exchange and enhance collaboration across systems. In this work, we publicly release NEPATEC2.0, an expanded corpus of NEPA documents with associated metadata. NEPATEC2.0 encompasses approximately 120,000 documents from 60,000 projects prepared by more than 60 different agencies. Modeled to align with CEQ metadata standards, NEPATEC2.0 promotes consistency in environmental reviews and supports the ongoing effort to modernize permitting technologies by facilitating more transparent, efficient, and data-driven decision-making. Importantly, NEPATEC2.0 demonstrates the possibilities and limitations of large language model-based prompting to extract information from NEPA documents at scale.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗