Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “METRICS”

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 721 records · Page 40
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Toward an improved estimate of climate sensitivity and its application to key climate metrics (Final Report)

The tendency of climate models to overstate warming in the tropical troposphere has long been noted. Here we examine individual runs from 38 newly released Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6 (CMIP6) models and show that the warm bias is now observable globally as well. We compare CMIP6 runs against observational series drawn from satellites, weather balloons, and reanalysis products. We focus on the 1979–2014 interval, the maximum span for which all observational products are available and for which models were run using historically observed forcings. For lower-troposphere and midtroposphere layers both globally and in the tropics, all 38 models overpredict warming in every target observational analog, in most cases significantly so, and the average differences between models and observations are statistically significant. We present evidence that consistency with observed warming would require lower model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) values.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2000

Performance and Optimization Metrics for Interferometric Radar

This paper provides a set of analytic equations that can be used to estimate system performance or to assist in the design of a system in that individual sources of height error can be balanced to minimize cost and maximize efficient use of resources.

optimization metrics interferometric radar interfe↗
NASA NTRS1997

Maintaining a Distributed File System by Collection and Analysis of Metrics

AFS(originally, Andrew File System) is a widely-deployed distributed file system product used by companies, universities, and laboratories world-wide. However, it is not trivial to operate: runing an AFS cell is a formidable task. It requires a team of dedicated and experienced system administratores who must manage a user base numbring in the thousands, rather than the smaller range of 10 to 500 faced by the typical system administrator.

Analysis Metrics Andrew↗
NASA NTRS2016

Kepler Planet Detection Metrics: Statistical Bootstrap Test

This document describes the data produced by the Statistical Bootstrap Test over the final three Threshold Crossing Event (TCE) deliveries to NExScI: SOC 9.1 (Q1Q16)1 (Tenenbaum et al. 2014), SOC 9.2 (Q1Q17) aka DR242 (Seader et al. 2015), and SOC 9.3 (Q1Q17) aka DR253 (Twicken et al. 2016). The last few years have seen significant improvements in the SOC science data processing pipeline, leading to higher quality light curves and more sensitive transit searches. The statistical bootstrap analysis results presented here and the numerical results archived at NASAs Exoplanet Science Institute (NExScI) bear witness to these software improvements. This document attempts to introduce and describe the main features and differences between these three data sets as a consequence of the software changes.

Bootstrap↗
NASA NTRS2017

Kepler Planet Detection Metrics: Robovetter Completeness and Effectiveness for Data Release 25

In general, the Kepler pipeline identifies a list of Threshold Crossing Events (TCEs), which are periodic flux decrements meeting certain criteria (Jenkins, 2017). These TCEs are reviewed and those that appear consistent with astrophysically transiting or eclipsing systems are classified as Kepler Objects of Interest (KOIs). Further review is given to KOIs, which are then dispositioned as Planet Candidates (PCs) or False Positive (FPs). FPs are further denoted by four major flags that indicate if the signal is Not Transit-Like (NTL), due to a Stellar Eclipse (SS; previously referred to as Significant Secondary), and/or due to contamination from a source other than the target as evidenced by a Centroid Offset (CO) oran Ephemeris Match (EM) with another object. This entire TCE review process is known as dispositioning or vetting.In the first five Kepler mission planet candidate catalogs (Borucki et al., 2011a,b; Batalha et al., 2013; Burke et al., 2014; Rowe et al., 2015), TCEs were manually examined on an individual basis and dispositioned using various plots and quantitative diagnostic tests (see e.g., Coughlin, 2017). In the sixth catalog, Mullally et al. (2015a) employed partial automation via simple parameter cuts to automatically disposition a large fraction of TCEs as not transit-like. Mullally et al. (2015a) also used an automated technique known as the centroid Robovetter (Mullally, 2017) to automatically identify some FP KOIs due to centroid offsets - a telltale signature of light contamination from another target. The remaining targets were manually dispositioned. In the seventh catalog, Coughlin et al. (2016) automated theentire dispositioning process using what is collectively known simply as the Robovetter.In the eighth and final mission catalog, Thompson et al. (2017) use a revised Robovetter to automate the dispositioning of all TCEs with an emphasis on creating a catalog suitable for accurately determining planet occurrence rates. In order to calculate accurate occurrence rates, the completeness and effectiveness of the Robovetter must be characterized. We define these terms as applied to the Robovetter, following Thompson et al. (2017), as:1. Completeness: The fraction of transiting planets detected by the pipeline that are classified as planet candidates by the Robovetter.2. Effectiveness: The fraction of false positives detected by the pipeline that are classified as false positives by the Robovetter.The remainder of this document describes products that can be used to quantitatively assess Robovetter completeness and effectiveness for an arbitrary set of Kepler stars.

Robovetter↗
NASA NTRS2017

Kepler Planet Detection Metrics: Per-Target Flux-Level Transit Injection Tests of TPS for Data Release 25

Quantifying the ability of a transiting planet survey to recover transit signals has commonly been accomplished through Monte-Carlo injection of transit signals into the observed data and subsequent running of the signal search algorithm (Gilliland et al., 2000; Weldrake et al., 2005; Burke et al., 2006). In order to characterize the performance of the Kepler pipeline (Twicken et al., 2016; Jenkins et al., 2017) on a sample of over 200,000 stars, two complementary injection and recovery tests are utilized:1. Injection of a single transit signal per target into the image or pixel-level data, hereafter referred to as pixel-level transit injection (PLTI), with subsequent processing through the Photometric Analysis (PA), Presearch Data Conditioning (PDC), Transiting Planet Search (TPS), and Data Validation (DV) modules of the Kepler pipeline. The PLTI quantification of the Kepler pipeline's completeness has been described previously by Christiansen et al. (2015, 2016); the completeness of the final SOC 9.3 Kepler pipeline acting on the Data Release 25 (DR25) light curves is described by Christiansen (2017).2. Injection of multiple transit signals per target into the normalized flux time series data with a subsequent transit search using a stream-lined version of the Transiting Planet Search (TPS) module. This test, hereafter referred to as flux-level transit injection (FLTI), is the subject of this document. By running a heavily modified version of TPS, FLTI is able to perform many injections on selected targets and determine in some detail which injected signals are recoverable. Significant numerical efficiency gains are enabled by precomputing the data conditioning steps at the onset of TPS and limiting the search parameter space (i.e., orbital period, transit duration, and ephemeris zero-point) to a small region around each injected transit signal.The PLTI test has the advantage that it follows transit signals through all processing steps of the Kepler pipeline, and the recovered signals can be further classified as planet candidates or false positives in the exact same manner as detections from the nominal (i.e., observed) pipeline run (Twicken et al., 2016, Thompson et al., in preparation). To date, the PLTI test has been the standard means of measuring pipeline completeness averaged over large samples of targets (Christiansen et al., 2015, 2016; Christiansen, 2017). However, since the PLTI test uses only one injection per target, it does not elucidate individual-target variations in pipeline completeness due to differences in stellar properties or astrophysical variability. Thus, we developed the FLTI test to provide a numerically efficient way to fully map individual targets and explore the performance of the pipeline in greater detail. The FLTI tests thereby allow a thorough validation of the pipeline completeness models (such as window function (Burke and Catanzarite, 2017a), detection efficiency (Burke Catanzarite, 2017b), etc.) across the spectrum of Kepler targets (i.e., various astrophysical phenomena and differences in instrumental noise). Tests during development of the FLTI capability revealed that there are significant target-to-target variations in the detection efficiency.

DR25↗
NASA NTRS2017

Kepler Planet Detection Metrics: Automatic Detection of Background Objects Using the Centroid Robovetter

We present an automated method of identifying background eclipsing binaries masquerading as planet candidates in the Kepler planet candidate catalogs. We codify the manual vetting process for Kepler Objects of Interest (KOIs) described in Bryson et al. (2013) with a series of measurements and tests that can be performed algorithmically. We compare our automated results with a sample of manually vetted KOIs from the catalog of Burke et al. (2014) and find excellent agreement. We test the performance on a set of simulated transits and find our algorithm correctly identifies simulated false positives approximately 50 of the time, and correctly identifies 99 of simulated planet candidates.

Centroid↗
NASA NTRS2017

Kepler Planet Detection Metrics: Per-Target Detection Contours for Data Release 25

A necessary input to planet occurrence calculations is an accurate model for the pipeline completeness (Burke et al., 2015). This document describes the use of the Kepler planet occurrence rate products in order to calculate a per-target detection contour for the measured Data Release 25 (DR25) pipeline performance. A per-target detection contour measures for a given combination of orbital period, Porb, and planet radius, Rp, what fraction of transit signals are recoverable by the Kepler pipeline (Twicken et al., 2016; Jenkins et al., 2017). The steps for calculating a detection contour follow the procedure outlined in Burke et al. (2015), but have been updated to provide improved accuracy enabled by the substantially larger database of transit injection and recovery tests that were performed on the final version (i.e., SOC 9.3) of the Kepler pipeline (Christiansen, 2017; Burke Catanzarite, 2017a). In the following sections, we describe the main inputs to the per-target detection contour and provide a worked example of the python software released with this document (Kepler Planet Occurrence Rate Tools KeplerPORTs)1 that illustrates the generation of a detection contour in practice. As background material for this document and its nomenclature, we recommend the reader be familiar with the previous method of calculating a detection contour (Section 2 of Burke et al.,2015), input parameters relevant for describing the data quantity and quality of Kepler targets (Burke Catanzarite, 2017b), and the extensive new transit injection and recovery tests of the Kepler pipeline (Christiansen et al., 2016; Burke Catanzarite, 2017a; Christiansen, 2017).

Planet Detection Metrics↗