Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Data fitting”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Analysis of Lobe Power Calculator and Indication System with Physics and Cycle Based Models

The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at INL measures reactor power through two methods, thermal and Nitrogen-16 (N-16) activity. Water power calculator (WPC) is a thermal power system that measures flow and temperature to determine the thermal quadrant powers. The N-16 system utilizes a beta chamber detector that outputs reactivity levels to calculate lobe power through an algorithm called lobe power calculation and indication system (LPCIS). The LPCIS utilizes the N-16 system and the WPC system to determine reactor core power levels. The WPC provides accurate calculations of quadrant and total reactor thermal power. With the use of WPC measurements, thermal-to-N-16 (T2N) power ratios are produced to determine if the two indication systems agree on core power. Relative magnitude equations are used to utilize N-16 coefficients and multipliers to improve the indications of the LPCIS. This is crucial for maintaining safety limits. Currently, the LPCIS system uses linear equations and matrices to calculate lobe power through multipliers and coefficients. Advancements in technology and system upgrades have assisted system engineers at INL with the objective to reach a more dynamic system. In return the system demonstrates an increase in the accuracy of power reading while maintaining safety margins. The new proposed coefficient and multiple method implements a cycle specific, and a physics-based model intended for changing coefficients during operation. This calibration experiment focuses on power splitting, outer shim and neck shim, as well as fuel burning into the RDAS weighting factors. Results show that the Physics learning method yields a smaller error margin inside of the desired power range for the data set 166-A. This proved true for both constrained and unconstrained testing. This is most likely due to the physics data fitting approach that resulted in favorable coefficients and multipliers for 166-A. Continuing to improve the physics-based model will help improve the power accuracy of the LPCIS system.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2026

NOvA Dual-Baseline Search for Active-to-Sterile Neutrino Oscillations using Neutrino- and Antineutrino-Enriched Samples

We report a search for neutrino oscillations to sterile neutrinos in the NOvA detectors under a model with three active and one sterile neutrinos. This search simultaneously fits data in the two NOvA detectors and is the first from NOvA to use both neutrino- and antineutrino-mode beams, with exposures of $26.61\times10^{20}$ and $12.50\times10^{20}$ protons on target, respectively. There is no evidence for sterile neutrinos in the data and we are able to exclude regions of parameter space that were allowed by previous experiments, including most of the allowed region reported by IceCube.

Abubakar, S. [Erciyes U.]↗
DOE OSTI2023

Rate Equations for Reversible Disproportionation Reactions and Fitting to Time-Course Data

Integrated rate equations are straightforward to fit to experimental data to verify a proposed mechanism and to extract kinetic parameters. Such equations are derived for reversible disproportionation/comproportionation reactions with any set of initial concentrations. Extraction of forward and reverse rate constants from experimental data by fitting the rate law to the data is demonstrated for the disproportionation of 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-1-piperidinyl-N-oxyl (TEMPO) under acidic conditions where the approach to equilibrium is observed.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2025

Beyond traditional diagnostics: Identifying active galactic nuclei using spectral energy distribution fitting in DESI data

Active galactic nuclei (AGN) are typically identified through their distinctive X-ray or radio emissions, mid-infrared (MIR) colors, or emission lines. However, each method captures different subsets of AGN due to signal-to-noise (S/N) limitations, redshift coverage, and extinction effects, underscoring the necessity for a multiwavelength approach for comprehensive AGN samples. This study explores the effectiveness of spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting as a robust method for AGN identification. Using CIGALE optical-MIR SED fits on DESI Early Data Release galaxies, we compare SED-based AGN selection (AGNFRAC ≥ 0.1) with traditional methods including BPT diagrams, WISE colors, X-ray, and radio diagnostics. The SED fitting identifies ∼70% of narrow- and broad-line AGN and 87% of WISE-selected AGN. Incorporating high S/N WISE photometry reduces star-forming galaxy contamination from 62% to 15%. Initially, ∼50% of SED-AGN candidates are undetected by standard methods, but additional diagnostics classify ∼85% of these sources, revealing low-ionization nuclear emission-line regions and retired galaxies potentially representing evolved systems with weak AGN activity. Further spectroscopic and multiwavelength analysis will be essential to determine the true AGN nature of these sources. SED fitting provides complementary AGN identification, unifying multiwavelength AGN selections. This approach enables more complete – albeit somewhat contaminated – AGN samples, which are essential for upcoming large-scale surveys where spectroscopic diagnostics may be limited.

Seyfert↗
DOE OSTI2022

An improved representation of the relationship between photosynthesis and stomatal conductance leads to more stable estimation of conductance parameters and improves the goodness-of-fit across diverse data sets

Stomata play a central role in surface-atmosphere exchange by controlling the flux of water and CO 2 between the leaf and the atmosphere. Representation of stomatal conductance (g sw ) is therefore an essential component of models that seek to simulate water and CO 2 exchange in plants and ecosystems. For given environmental conditions at the leaf surface (CO 2 concentration and vapor pressure deficit or relative humidity), models typically assume a linear relationship between g sw and photosynthetic CO 2 assimilation (A). However, measurement of leaf-level g sw response curves to changes in A are rare, particularly in the tropics, resulting in only limited data to evaluate this key assumption. Here, we measured the response of g sw and A to irradiance in six tropical species at different leaf phenological stages. We showed that the relationship between g sw and A was not linear, challenging the key assumption upon which optimality theory is based-that the marginal cost of water gain is constant. Our data showed that increasing A resulted in a small increase in g sw at low irradiance, but a much larger increase at high irradiance. We reformulated the popular Unified Stomatal Optimization (USO) model to account for this phenomenon and to enable consistent estimation of the key conductance parameters g 0 and g 1 . Our modification of the USO model improved the goodness-of-fit and reduced bias, enabling robust estimation of conductance parameters at any irradiance. In addition, our modification revealed previously undetectable relationships between the stomatal slope parameter g 1 and other leaf traits. We also observed nonlinear behavior between A and g sw in independent datasets that included data collected from attached and detached leaves, and from plants grown at elevated CO 2 concentration. We propose that this empirical modification of the USO model can improve the measurement of g sw parameters and the estimation of plant and ecosystem-scale water and CO 2 fluxes.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Bayesian Fit to NOvA Data Subsamples for Three Flavor Oscillation Analysis

NOvA (NuMI Off-Axis $\nu_e$ Appearance) is a long baseline neutrino experiment designed to measure the oscillation of muon neutrinos to electron neutrinos over a distance of 810 km. NOvA uses a near and far detector to observe $\nu_\mu$ disappearance and $\nu_e$ appearance of neutrinos produced by the NuMI beam at Fermilab. NOvA uses a Bayesian analysis framework in addition to its Frequentist method to measure neutrino oscillation parameters such as the mixing angles, mass ordering, and CP-violating phase. We report preliminary results of Bayesian fits to representative NOvA datasets. Comparison of fits to $\nu_\mu$ disappearance and $\nu_e$ appearance enables a cross-check of NOvA results with reactor $\bar{\nu_e}$ disappearance measurements. NOvA also searches for violation of Lorentz invariance by analyzing fits of forward horn current (FHC) versus reverse horn current (RHC) samples. The results validate and advance NOvA's contributions to precision measurements of neutrino properties.

Zhao, Larry [Fermilab]↗
DOE OSTI2021

sas-temper

Modeling remains a considerable challenge for practitioners of SAXS and SANS because the materials being studied are not highly ordered, the length scales being studied are large, and the information content of the data is low. Data analysis is both challenging and time consuming. Novices often rely on the assistance of an expert, such as the instrument scientist who supported them at the facility where the experiment was performed, to analyze their data. The high flux provided by modern facilities makes it possible to study dozens of samples or sample conditions during a single trip. Ultimately, the high throughput of modern instruments limits access to instrument scientists. A bottleneck in the research effort results that reduces facility productivity. Sas-temper seeks to address this problem, as well as the intrinsic difficulties of being confident in non-linear least squared fitting of data, by providing tools that automate much of the manual process of initial data fitting and refinement, as well as by providing tools for characterizing the nature of the parameter space that fits the measured data. The tools provided by sas-temper help small-angle scattering practitioners transition data into results.

Heller, William [Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), O↗
DOE OSTI2022

Early arrival waveform inversion using data uncertainties and matching filters with application to near-surface seismic refraction data

We develop an early arrival waveform inversion (EAWI) technique for high-resolution near-surface velocity estimation by iteratively updating the P-wave velocity model to minimize the difference between the observed and calculated seismic refraction data. Traditional EAWI uses a least-squares penalty function and an acoustic forward-modeling engine. Conventional least-squares error is sensitive to data with low signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) and iterations of EAWI stop at a local-minimum data misfit or at the preassigned maximum number of iterations. These stopping criteria can result in overfitting the data. In addition, fitting the elastic field data with an acoustic modeling engine can introduce artifacts in velocity estimation, especially in land data with significant elastic effects. To overcome these challenges, we develop a robust EAWI (REAWI) method by (1) incorporating the data uncertainties into the penalty function and (2) mitigating the elastic effects using a matching filter workflow. The data uncertainties are estimated from waveform reciprocal errors. When full-waveform reciprocity is not available, trace interpolation is applied. The proposed method prevents closely fitting data with low S/N, avoids overall overfitting by stopping the iterations when a normalized chi-square ([Formula: see text]) waveform misfit of one is achieved, and is less affected by elastic effects. Numerical examples and application to near-surface refraction data at a groundwater contamination site suggest that the final REAWI models are more accurate than the corresponding EAWI models, at the same level of misfit. This is the first known application of a matching filter workflow to real land data. The final REAWI models satisfy an appropriate misfit between the real data and predicted elastic P-wave data, making this approach in this respect equivalent to elastic waveform inversion. We also develop a method to analyze model constraint by examining the energy of the wavefield Fréchet derivative thereby avoiding the influence of the data residuals in traditional Fréchet kernels.

Geochemistry & Geophysics↗
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 OSTI2022

Reanalysis of crackle perception data using logistic and logarithmic fits and sound quality metrics

Mathematical models of human auditory perception (sound quality metrics) are explored for the purpose of fitting human subject data from a prior published study. A variety of linearizing transforms and techniques are employed. Ultimately, a model is identified that predicts 98.9% of the variance in average human subject ratings of crackliness of jet noise waveforms.

Swift, Stephen Hales↗
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 OSTI2025

An analysis of parameter compression and Full-Modeling techniques with Velocileptors for DESI 2024 and beyond

In anticipation of forthcoming data releases of current and future spectroscopic surveys, we present the validation tests and analysis of systematic effects within velocileptors modeling pipeline when fitting mock data from the AbacusSummit N-body simulations. We compare the constraints obtained from parameter compression methods to the direct fitting (Full-Modeling) approaches of modeling the galaxy power spectra, and show that the ShapeFit extension to the traditional template method is consistent with the Full-Modeling method within the standard ΛCDM parameter space. We show the dependence on scale cuts when fitting the different redshift bins using the ShapeFit and Full-Modeling methods. We test the ability to jointly fit data from multiple redshift bins as well as joint analysis of the pre-reconstruction power spectrum with the post-reconstruction BAO correlation function signal. We further demonstrate the behavior of the model when opening up the parameter space beyond ΛCDM and also when combining likelihoods with external datasets, namely the Planck CMB priors. Finally, we describe different parametrization options for the galaxy bias, counterterm, and stochastic parameters, and employ the halo model in order to physically motivate suitable priors that are necessary to ensure the stability of the perturbation theory.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Frhodo: A program for simulating chemical kinetic measurements and optimizing kinetic mechanisms

Chemical kinetic simulations are frequently used to extract kinetic and mechanistic information from experimental data by fitting simulations to the data. For simple systems of consecutive single channel reactions this is a relatively straightforward task. However, as the complexity of the system increases and particularly for systems involving competitive multi-channel reactions manually optimizing a mechanism to obtain the best fits to a range of experimental data quickly becomes a time-intensive and challenging process, especially when rate coefficients have pressure and temperature dependencies. There is considerable potential for exploiting automated optimization methods to rapidly screen reaction mechanisms and optimize the fit by adjusting rate coefficients within well-defined constraints. A new chemical kinetics simulation program, Frhodo, has been developed for this purpose. The program allows either manual simulation of individual experiments or fully automated optimization against a range of experimental data by adjusting user selected reactions within user defined constraints. Frhodo incorporates machine learning-based optimization routines that work by either minimizing standardized residuals or through Bayesian parameter estimation. Frhodo's optimization capabilities are demonstrated by reexamining two previously studied systems of relevance to combustion. Dissociation of diacetyl followed by recombination of methyl radicals is an example of a sequence of single channel, consecutive reactions. Pyrolysis of 2-methyl furan exemplifies multi-channel, unimolecular reactions that are often encountered and have temperature and pressure dependencies in the rate coefficients of the channels and branching ratios between them. For both systems the optimization routines resulted in solutions similar to the original studies. Finally, comments are made on the strengths and limitations of the approach.

0D simulation↗
DOE OSTI2025

A product data network to enable faster, easier, and better planning of building envelopes

The building envelopes contributes significantly to the energy-efficiency of the building. Building performance simulation has made it possible to compare façade technologies regarding energy demand, daylighting, thermal and visual comfort in detail. Planners, such as architects and engineers, need experience to find product data with the right quality and level of detail, and to process the data to fit the calculation and the application. In the available time, planners can compare only a limited number of products, which means that better solutions could go unnoticed. This paper presents a new concept for making product data easily accessible for building façade planning. The concept consists of a network of databases for the efficient exchange and use of optical and calorimetric data of glazing units, shading devices, and combinations of both. The paper presents the research questions, an analysis of the current challenges, six design goals for the product data network and its implementation together with a discussion. Many product data sources can be connected to many planning software applications via the specified application programming interface. When planning software connects to the product data network, the planning of building envelopes can be much faster because planners do not need to spend so much time to search and process product data manually. The planning of building envelopes can also become much easier, especially for planners with limited experience. They do not need to understand all the details about which data fits which calculation if the software company implements this. The planning of building envelopes can become much more reliable when software companies validate their use of the product data network, because the current manual process is prone to errors. The planning of building envelopes can also improve because more products can be compared in the available time, allowing better solutions to be found.

Maurer, Christoph↗
DOE OSTI2021

Sheaves as a Framework for Understanding and Interpreting Model Fit

As data grows in size and complexity, finding frameworks which aid in interpretation and analysis has become critical. This is particularly true when data comes from complex systems where extensive structure is available, but must be drawn from peripheral sources. In this paper we argue that in such situations, sheaves can provide a natural framework to analyze how well a statistical model fits at the local level (that is, on subsets of related datapoints) vs the global level (on all the data). The sheaf-based approach that we propose is suitably general enough to be useful in a range of applications, from analyzing sensor networks to understanding the feature space of a deep learning model.

Kvinge, Henry J.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Automated vehicle microscopic energy consumption study (AV-Micro): Data collection and model development

While the Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) system in automated vehicles (AVs) is expected to impact transportation energy significantly, existing AV energy consumption models only directly adopt those developed with Human-driven Vehicle (HV) data without even slight adaptation or calibration to accommodate unique AV energy consumption features. This study will investigate how accurately HV data-based models can predict the energy consumption of AVs. Empirical trajectory data and corresponding instantaneous energy consumption rates from both AVs and HVs were collected. We adopted two classical HV data-based models to fit these data. The calibration results indicated that these models yield around 20 30% prediction errors for AVs. To further improve the prediction accuracy, this study designed an AV-Micro model by incorporating components of multiple classic energy consumption models that better capture ACC energy consumption features, including piecewise driving behavior. With this, the AV-Micro model achieves lower than 10% prediction errors. The AV-Micro model’s high consistency across different test runs was verified with statistical significance tests, demonstrating its adaptability in different driving profiles. To confirm the discrepancies between the energy consumption features of AVs and HVs, more statistical significance tests were conducted to show that the AV-Micro model cannot be directly applied to HV data. The findings by calibrated AV-Micro models revealed that AVs consume approximately 80.5–146.4 J more energy than HVs for each meter traveled. Furthermore, the frequency analysis of energy consumption indicates that there is still some room for AVs to improve energy efficiency, particularly given their larger amplitude high-frequency fluctuations.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Network Models of Active Degradation Mechanisms and Pathways for Service Life Prediction of Indoor and Outdoor PV Modules

ct: PV service lifetime prediction (SLP) enables accurate calculation of levelized cost of energy (LCOE), which is crucial to rationalizing PV investment and installation. However, SLP is challeging since PV reliability in the field is affected by many combined factors, including various environmental stresses and module quality. In order to map out the active degradation mechanisms and pathways that best resemble real world conditions, we introduce the framework of a study protocol and use network models fitted to data, to enable analysis and SLP of complex PV systems with multiple active degradation mechanisms. The study protocol is the experimental design, including module variants and different exposure conditions, selection of evaluation methods, time-series data acquisition and training of network models to these data. We present SLP of minimodules in the lab and PV systems in the field. For lab SLP, minimodules with 8 variants based on manufacturer, architecture, and encapsulation were prepared and aged in modified damp heat with or without full spectrum light exposure. Stepwise I-V and Suns-Voc data acquisition tracks changes in electrical properties including Rs,IV, Isc,IV, Vmp,PIV providing insights into power loss of minimodules. Network structural equation modeling (netSEM) was utilized to construct degradation pathway models that identify active degradation mechanisms and predict power loss over time. For field SLP, datastreams of Pmp values and I-V curve datastreams of two types of modules installed in three distinctly different Köppen-Geiger climate zones for 9 years were acquired. With power loss modes corresponding to uniform current loss (ΔPIsc), recombination (ΔPVoc), series resistance (ΔPRs), and current mismatch (ΔPImis) determined, the performance loss rates (PLR) were determined using PVplr. We show how to establish a study protocol framework to ensure appropriate parametric variations and valid data collection from the variants of your complex systems. Then the data-driven netSEM model fitting provides a comprehensive mapping of multiple active degradation mechanisms, and accurate service life prediction.

network model, degradation, photovoltaic, solar↗