SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “OUTPUT”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 91 records · Page 5

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Phase 2 Official Simulations: GCAM-Demeter-SELECT Annualized Land Use and Land Cover, Wood Harvest and Fertilization Data with Dynamic Urbanization Harmonized to CLM Land Definitions at 0.125 Degrees

Annualized land use land cover data, including wood harvest and fertilizer use data from the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) downscaled to 0.125 degrees for couping with the Community Land Model (CLM). GCAM here refers to GCAM-USA v5.3.im3 which has an enhanced electricity sector and an updated data system needed to represent regional to local scale dynamics. Data is also harmonized with future urbanization projections from the Spatially-Explicit, Long-term, Empirical City developmenT (SELECT) model. Projections/Data are generated using the demeter land use and land cover downscaling model. Original projections were generated at 0.05 degrees before being aggregared to 0.125 degrees. Projections are available for 8 alternative scenarios. Two versions of final data are included- one with managed forests or harvested forest area per pixel broken out and one with the same aggregated into total forests. Following folders are included: demeter_78_PFT_output:This is the final output of dynamic land use land cover change for 78 PFTs as required by CLM raw_outputs_incl_managed_forest: This is the final output but with managed forests broken out as a different PFT. Essentially a 79th PFT is added. wood_harvest_outputs: Wood harvest output per pixel in gC/m2 fertilization_outputs: Fertilizer use per pixel in gN/m2 Each NetCDF file in each folder represents a projection for a separate year, scenario. Land use outputs are organized as PFT level data saved as subdata. Link to GCAM version used- https://data.msdlive.org/records/yb23g-44274 Link to SELECT documentation -https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815219301707 Link to CLM documentation- - https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/clm In case of questions contact- kanishka.narayan@pnnl.gov

GCAM-USA↗

DOE OSTI2025

Integrated GW Farm ABM

This Data Repository includes data used for the integrated groundwater- farm ABM model, raw model output from scenario ensemble, and processed outputs that isolate the groundwater storage depletion outcomes for the 35,000 farm cells. Model Inputs: Farm ABM Inputs: This folder contains the input data used by the integrated groundwater - farm ABM modelling script (Python file) used for the high performance computing (HPC) experiments. The sub-folder "data inputs" contains all of the farm attribute data, while the three files in the folder have the hydrogeological data lookup table (NLDAS Cost Curve Attributes.csv), a lookup table (Theis well function table.csv) for the groundwater cost curve function, and the farm indexes and corresponding NLDAS ids for all of the cells run in this experiment (nldas farms subset final.csv). NLDAS Cost curve hydrogeological data: Hydrogeological data aggregated to 1/8 degree resolution and aligned with the NLDAS grid. Parameters include: water depth below ground surface [meters], subsurface porosity [unitless], aquifer depth from ground surface to aquifer bottom [meters], annual average recharge (USGS: mm, Doll: meters), and three different hydraulic conductivity (K) values (meters/day). The three K values represent the mean value from Gleeson et al. (2018), one standard deviation above the mean from Gleeson et al. (2018), and the de Graaf et al. 2020 modifications to certain lithologies. Additional information about these datasets and their processing are documented in the supplement to Yoon et al. 2025 (in review). Output: Raw outputs: This folder contains a .zip file that has model outputs for the entire scenario ensemble. There is one csv for each farm id, using the format "farm farmid cases.csv". The relationship between the farm id and NLDAS id is defined by the "nldas farms subset final.csv" located in the Farm ABM Inputs folder. Each csv has 625 rows, corresponding to 625 combinations of different scenario parameter values. Each row (scenario) represents the outcome of a 100 year simulation. Columns define scenario settings and summary statistics for each scenario. The first four columns define the scenario settings: "hydro ratio," "econ ratio," "K scenario," and "gamma scenario." The hydro and econ ratios are values passed to the modeling script that influence multipliers for other model parameters, as documented in the supplement to Yoon et al. 2025 (in review). The gamma multiplier is a coefficient multiplier applied to the baseline gamma values (values below 1 represent lower unobserved costs compared to baseline, values above 1 represent higher costs). The K scenario names represent K values of: "low": 0.5 m/d, "int 1": 2.5 m/d, "int 2": 10 m/d, "high": 50 m/d, and "gleeson": mean Gleeson K value. "Perc vol depleted" is the fraction of groundwater depleted at the end of the 100 simulation. Processed Output: Derived depletion outcomes from raw outputs: All of the individual csv files from the Raw outputs were aggregated into a single file that has the scenario settings and fraction depletion "Perc vol depleted" for every farm cell, for every scenario. The other two files define relationships between the farm id, NLDAS id, and local and major aquifer units, used for aquifer-level depletion analysis.

Agent based modeling↗

DOE OSTI2026

Data and script associated with “Shifts in Rain-Snow Partitioning Drive Faster Water Transit Times in the US Pacific Northwest”

This data package contains the data and code to use and run the Water Tracer enabled version of the Weather Research and Forecasting Hydrologic model (WT-WRF-Hydro) with the Sequential Precipitation Input Tagging (SPIT) framework. It is associated with the publication “Shifts in Rain-Snow Partitioning Drive Faster Water Transit Times in the US Pacific Northwest” published in Scientific Reports (Butler et al., 2026; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-46539-1). We use the Continental U.S. (CONUSII; Rasmussen et al., 2021) dataset to force the model with an historical climate (2006–2013) and a future climate (2086–2093) with a representative carbon pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario. We use the model to calculate water transit times in five headwater catchments within the U.S. Pacific Northwest. We also show key hydrologic and environmental variables that affect water transit times and changes in the future. Finally, we use observed data to validate the model such as stream water isotopes, snowpack characteristics, and stream discharge. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. In addition to a readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. The data package consists of 11 folders: (1) "Figures" contains the exported figures used in the manuscript; (2) "Model_Isotope_Date" contains the WT-WRF-Hydro isotope date used in model validation; (3) “Model_Outputs_Future” contains the WT-WRF-Hydro future climate outputs; (4) “Model_Outputs_Historical” contains the WT-WRF-Hydro historical climate outputs; (5) “Model_Outputs_Weights_Areas” contains the WT-WRF-Hydro weights per catchment used to calculate water transit times and isotopes in stream water; (6) “MODIS_data_scripts” contains data used to validate snow conditions in the study area; (7) “Observed_Flow_Data” contains the observed streamflow data used in model validation; (8) “Observed_Isotope_Data” contains the observed stream water isotope data used in model validation; (9) “Scripts” contains the Python scripts used to general results and the figures; (10) “Statistic_Outputs” contains the water transit time statistical outputs reported in this manuscript; (11) “Validation_SNOTEL” contains the SNOTEL data used in model validation. The files in this data package have the following file extensions: .tif, .txt, .csv, .pdf, .py, .jpg, and .png.

American River↗

DOE OSTI2026

Xanthos-Lake Dataset

The Xanthos-Lake v1.0 dataset provides the input data, trained machine-learning models, and simulation outputs needed to characterize lake water balance, snow and ice conditions, and mixing-layer temperature within the Xanthos global hydrological modeling framework. The dataset supports lake representation across a wide range of lake sizes and hydroclimatic conditions by combining xLSIM, a basin-specific machine-learning emulator of lake snow, ice, ice-cover fraction, and mixing-layer temperature, with the Xanthos-Lake water-balance model. The archive contains NetCDF datasets used to train and evaluate xLSIM, trained model weights, processed meteorological and lake-property inputs, and basin- and lake-category-specific simulation outputs. These materials are organized into four primary data groups, described below. Snowice_model_inputs: Contains the NetCDF input data used to train xLSIM. The xLSIM machine-learning framework uses three lake-based datasets. The meteorological forcing dataset provides monthly relative humidity, specific humidity, surface wind speed, maximum and minimum air temperature, downward longwave and shortwave radiation, snowfall, surface air pressure, and total precipitation. Lake surface area is included as an additional static predictor. The target-state dataset provides lake ice thickness, snow depth, snow cover, and lake mixing-layer temperature, while a companion lake-surface dataset provides the lake ice-cover fraction. Before training, ice thickness and snow depth are converted from meters to centimeters, mixing-layer temperature is converted from kelvin to degrees Celsius and constrained to nonnegative values, and ice-cover fraction is converted from a fraction to a percentage. The predictor variables are normalized using statistics calculated across the selected lakes and time steps. Snowice_model_outputs: Contains the NetCDF outputs generated by xLSIM. For each basin, xLSIM produces a file containing observed and predicted lake-state variables for the training, validation, and testing periods. The modeled variables include lake ice thickness, snow depth, snow cover, mixing-layer temperature, and lake ice-cover fraction. For basins without a sufficiently persistent snow-and-ice signal, the emulator predicts only mixing-layer temperature. The outputs also include training and validation loss histories, the selected model configuration, identifiers of the lakes used in training, and SHAP-based feature-importance information at the global, lake, and seasonal-regime levels. The trained machine-learning model weights are provided separately within the dataset archive. Together, these files support model evaluation and subsequent coupling with the Xanthos-Lake water-balance framework. XanthosLAKES: Contains the NetCDF input data used by the Xanthos-Lake framework. Monthly meteorological inputs include relative and specific humidity, downward shortwave and longwave radiation, mean, maximum, and minimum air temperature, wind speed, precipitation, snowfall, and surface air pressure. Static lake-property datasets provide lake identifiers, geographic locations, surface area, volume, mean depth, elevation, drainage area, fetch, outlet-routing information, and associated Xanthos grid-cell attributes. Separate bathymetric datasets provide the coefficients of the area–depth and volume–depth relationships for each aggregated lake unit. GLEV-based records provide observed lake surface area and evaporation data used to initialize lake states, define reference conditions, and calibrate and evaluate the model. Xanthos-Lake Outputs: Contains the basin- and lake-category-specific NetCDF outputs generated by Xanthos-Lake. Monthly variables include lake surface area, storage volume, outlet discharge, evaporation rate, evaporation volume, lake–groundwater exchange, lake inflow, ice thickness, snow depth, snow-cover fraction, ice-cover fraction, and mixing-layer temperature. The files also contain lake-specific calibration and validation statistics, including normalized root-mean-square error, mean absolute error, Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency, Kling–Gupta efficiency, and percent bias. Stored calibrated and derived parameters include the weir discharge coefficient, fractional freeboard, groundwater exchange coefficient, reference water level, corresponding reference surface area and storage volume, weir-width adjustment factor, and the fraction of routed inflow entering the lake. Basin identifiers, lake category, simulation period, calibration and validation periods, and parameter-schema information are retained as NetCDF metadata.

Abeshu, Guta [Pacific Northwest National Laborator↗

DOE OSTI2024

Effects of machine learning errors on human decision-making: manipulations of model accuracy, error types, and error importance

Abstract This study addressed the cognitive impacts of providing correct and incorrect machine learning (ML) outputs in support of an object detection task. The study consisted of five experiments that manipulated the accuracy and importance of mock ML outputs. In each of the experiments, participants were given the T and L task with T-shaped targets and L-shaped distractors. They were tasked with categorizing each image as target present or target absent. In Experiment 1, they performed this task without the aid of ML outputs. In Experiments 2–5, they were shown images with bounding boxes, representing the output of an ML model. The outputs could be correct (hits and correct rejections), or they could be erroneous (false alarms and misses). Experiment 2 manipulated the overall accuracy of these mock ML outputs. Experiment 3 manipulated the proportion of different types of errors. Experiments 4 and 5 manipulated the importance of specific types of stimuli or model errors, as well as the framing of the task in terms of human or model performance. These experiments showed that model misses were consistently harder for participants to detect than model false alarms. In general, as the model’s performance increased, human performance increased as well, but in many cases the participants were more likely to overlook model errors when the model had high accuracy overall. Warning participants to be on the lookout for specific types of model errors had very little impact on their performance. Overall, our results emphasize the importance of considering human cognition when determining what level of model performance and types of model errors are acceptable for a given task.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2026

Model Data Archive Associated with Manuscript "Fire-altered Carbon Pools Create Disturbance Memory in Stream Dissolved Organic Carbon"

This data package supports the publication “Fire-altered Carbon Pools Create Disturbance Memory in Stream Dissolved Organic Carbon” by Li et al. (2026). The package contains processed model inputs, configuration files, restart files, simulation outputs, scripts, and visualization products used to evaluate post-fire dissolved organic carbon (DOC) dynamics in the Naches River Watershed, Washington, USA, following the 2021 Schneider Springs Fire. The modeling workflow couples ELM-BGC, the biogeochemistry-enabled Energy Exascale Earth System Model Land Model; ATS, the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator for integrated surface-subsurface hydrology; and PFLOTRAN, a reactive transport model for multicomponent aqueous geochemistry. Together, these models simulate how wildfire-induced changes in vegetation, litter, coarse woody debris, and soil organic matter influence DOC production, transport, and reaction from burned hillslopes to stream networks. The archive includes preprocessed meteorological, geospatial, hydrologic, and biogeochemical forcing data; ELM-BGC-derived DOC source terms; ATS mesh files; PFLOTRAN reactive-transport inputs; model configuration files; spin-up and transient restart files; watershed-scale diagnostic outputs; stream concentration time series; and figures or visualization files used to inspect and reproduce key results. File types include Hierarchical Data Format 5 (HDF5) files for gridded forcing and model-coupling data, model input and configuration files for ELM-BGC, ATS, and PFLOTRAN, restart and simulation-output files generated by the modeling workflow, tabular or time-series diagnostic outputs, scripts for post-processing and figure generation, and image or visualization products associated with the manuscript. Use of the package depends on the intended task. Re-running the simulations requires the relevant modeling software, including ELM-BGC, ATS, and PFLOTRAN as ATS's geochemical engine. Inspecting outputs and reproducing figures requires Python with scientific plotting libraries such as Matplotlib, and three-dimensional model outputs may be viewed with ParaView. Geographic information system files or maps may be inspected with ArcGIS Pro or comparable GIS software. The data package is intended to enable traceability, reuse, and partial reproduction of the coupled land-to-watershed hydro-biogeochemical modeling workflow used to test how wildfire disturbance affects terrestrial carbon pools and downstream DOC dynamics.

ATS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Verification of EvaluateFLux Utility Program

The EvaluateFlux program is a post-processing utility program for DIF3D, specifically DIF3D-VARIANT which handles Cartesian and hexagonal geometries. The EvaluateFlux program was developed to allow users to obtain flux and power traverses through the geometry domain, and its initial purpose was to facilitate foil analysis by evaluating the flux solution from DIF3D-VARIANT and combining it with foil cross section data. The EvaluateFlux program can calculate the neutron flux, as well as the reaction rates, at any user provided evaluation point. It does this by identifying the spatial mesh associated with the evaluation point and then evaluates the polynomial based neutron flux moments stored in the NHFLUX file at that point. The output of EvaluateFlux varies depending on the input setup. The maximum output includes the neutron flux and microscopic and macroscopic reaction rates at each evaluation point. The purpose of this work is to verify the outputs of EvaluateFlux. Simple models that have hand calculatable results are first defined and used to verify the EvaluateFlux outputs. More complex cases are then added where a duplicate program of EvaluateFlux that uses PrintTables outputs of the binary files is used to verify the EvaluateFlux outputs. In those complex cases, hand calculations of selected evaluation points were also displayed to confirm the software verification. For all the tests done, the hand calculations agreed well with those calculated by EvaluateFlux. For the larger complex problems, the duplicate program that can process hundreds of evaluation points was able to identify that zero points within some meshes have large errors. This aspect was attributed to the truncation error on the input provided to the duplicate program and is not a concern for the accuracy of the EvaluateFlux software.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2024

Verification of the EvaluateFlux Utility Program

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2025

CMIP7 data request: impacts and adaptation priorities and opportunities

The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 7 (CMIP7) undertook an extensive process to gather community input and refine data requests related to impacts and adaptation applications of Earth System Model (ESM) outputs. The Impacts and Adaptation (I&A) Data Request Team worked with CMIP7 leadership to distribute an open solicitation across many communities that use climate model outputs requesting inputs for new and existing variables, the most applicable temporal characteristics, and groupings of variables that together allow for specific application opportunities. This input was then collated and translated into CMIP7 standard templates for inclusion in the broader data request, leading to 13 I&A data request opportunities, 60 variable groups and 539 unique variables sought by vulnerability, impacts, adaptation, and climate services user communities. Here, we describe these opportunities and variable groups, as well as new insights into how ESM groups can prioritize outputs that set off a chain of further analyses, ultimately informing decisions impacting society and natural systems. These include an emphasis on high-resolution outputs to allow further modeling of climate impacts at regional and local scales, improved representation of extreme weather events, enhanced accuracy of downscaling and bias-adjustment techniques, and support for more detailed assessments for decision-making in adaptation and mitigation strategies. There is also broad interest in more extensive provisioning of two-dimensional variables at the Earth's surface, prioritizing experiments that enhance our understanding of both the recent past and future scenarios, and providing outputs that allow further downscaling and bias adjustment. We emphasize that variable groups are the fundamental level at which to engage with the I&A data request, matching the scale of input and the way output provision enables specific I&A applications. Given resource constraints, we applaud CMIP7 efforts to foster strong engagement and communication between ESM groups and the I&A team to build consensus around prudent compromises in priority variables, temporal resolutions, simulation experiments, time subsets, and ensemble members.

Ruane, Alex C. [NASA Goddard Inst. for Space Studi↗

DOE OSTI2025

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection Description This dataset contains input and output data for the manuscript Mongird, K. et al. (under review) titled "Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection". Input data corresponds to gridded spatial siting attributes that are necessary to conduct a random forest machine learning analysis of siting feature importance. Output data includes SHAP feature analysis outputs, and classification report values. For data on power plant siting results referred to in the manuscript, please refer to the CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations data download page. The downloadable data includes values for eight different future scenarios for the Western US. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 Technical Information The dataset includes two sets of data files: (1) CERF gridded siting parameters and (2) Feature analysis outputs and classification reports. All downloadable data is in csv file format. Files with x/y coordinate information use the Albers Equal Area Conic projection (ESRI:102003). 1. CERF Gridded Siting Parameters This directory provides a balanced sample of gridded CERF siting parameters data for eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055, seven different technologies, and eight timesteps. This data serves as input to the feature analysis. It contains the following parameters. region_name - name of region (i.e., state) sited - binary value representing whether the grid cell received a siting of that technology type (1=True) rcp - binary value representing scenario resource concentration pathway (0 = RCP4.5, 1 = RCP8.5) ssp - binary value representing scenario shared socioeconomic pathway (0 = SSP3, 1 = SSP5) climate - binary value representing cooler (0) or hotter (1) GCM forcing tech_name - generation technology name sited_year - year that values correspond to transmission_cost - cost of transmission interconnection pipeline_cost - cost of natural gas pipeline interconnection interconnection_cost - total interconnection cost (sum of transmission cost and gas pipeline cost) lmp - associated locational marginal value ($/MWh) associated with the grid cell, timestep, scenario, and technology xcoord - x-coordinate of location ycoord - y-coordinate of location 2a. Feature Analysis Output The dataset includes the feature analysis shap output for locational marginal price and interconnection cost. It contains the following parameters. technology - generator technology name scenario - name of scenario feature - name of feature, either locational_marginal_price or interconnection_cost value - the mean of absolute value of SHAP values for given feature 2b. Feature Analysis Classification Report This download includes the classification report associated with each random forest model. The dataset contains the following parameters. technology - generation technology name scenario - name of scenario test - one of precision (the proportion of predicted positives that are actually correct), recall (the proportion of actual positives that were correctly identified), f1-score (the harmonic mean of precision and recall) 0.0 - value of test for classification of 0 (grid cell not chosen for siting) 1.0 - value of test for classification of 1 (grid cell chosen for siting) accuracy - accuracy of model (i.e., fraction of all predictions that were right) macro avg - Simple average of test values for all classes weighted avg - Weighted average of test values for all classes, weighted based on Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, 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, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗

DOE OSTI2024

Radiometric Testing of Germicidal UV Products, Round 2: Upper-Room Luminaires (CALiPER Report)

This report analyzes the independently tested performance of eight germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) upper-room luminaires marketed for use in occupied spaces and purchased between March and June 2023. This type of product is mounted to upper walls or ceilings to treat air in the portion of the room above occupants; this allows for safe use of the room when the device is operating, but requires sufficient air mixing between upper and lower portions of the room. Three of the luminaires used UV-emitting LEDs, and the remaining five luminaires used low-pressure mercury (LPM) lamps. Product testing covered radiometric and electrical performance for each luminaire. Initial performance was measured for all eight products, and four were additionally measured after 100 h and 500 h of operation. Measured performance data allowed for comparison against manufacturer or vendor claims if the tested products included such claims. Some products had no performance data available for a given quantity (e.g., UV-C output power), and only four of the eight luminaires had radiant intensity distribution data files in a standard format (e.g., IES LM-63) available for download from product websites. The lack of publicly available performance data makes it difficult for potential buyers and specifiers to identify suitable products and design GUV systems for their specific applications. When products had performance claims, they were sometimes contradictory (e.g., unexplained differences between multiple power values) or ambiguous (e.g., measurement units conflict with quantity, unclear whether luminaire power or lamp power, unclear whether UV output power or UV-C output power). Three of the eight tested luminaires had claimed output power (i.e., radiant flux) values that exceeded measured values by more than an order of magnitude. There was substantial variation in UV-C radiant efficiency, with a measured range of 0.3–1.9% for LED and 0.4–2.1% for LPM, as shown in Figure 1. For example, the LPM luminaire with 0.4% radiant efficiency would need 5 times the amount of electrical energy used by the LPM luminaire with 2.1% radiant efficiency to produce the same amount of UV-C output power. LPM luminaires that had parabolic reflectors aligned with inclined louvers exhibited substantially higher UV-C radiant efficiency than tested luminaires with other designs, potentially cutting energy use by 75%. These results indicate a substantial opportunity for more energy efficient LPM luminaire designs, while demonstrating that UV LED luminaires can offer comparable UV-C radiant efficiency in this application. This may seem surprising, given that LED emitters have lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM lamps, but the efficiency-throttling louvers that are generally required for LPM luminaires typically are not needed for LEDs thanks to their directionality. However, lateral beam angles (which describe beam width as viewed from above) were 41–83° for LED luminaires versus 89–110° for LPM luminaires. More luminaires may be required if their lateral beam angles are relatively small, and coverage may be poor if UV-C radiant intensity distribution (i.e., beam shape) is not considered when designing systems.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2026

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2026 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for atomistic materials modeling

This release contains data and parameters of HydraGNN-based graph foundation models trained as a result of the work published in the pre-print "Exascale Multi-Task Graph Foundation Models for Imbalanced, Multi-Fidelity Atomistic Data" by M. Lupo Pasini et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15380). We jointly train on 16 open first-principles datasets (544+ million structures covering 85+ elements) using a multi-task architecture with per-dataset heads and a scalable ADIOS2/DDStore data pipeline. On Frontier, we execute six large-scale DeepHyper hyperparameter optimization campaigns in FP64 and promote the top-performing message-passing models to sustained 2,048-node training, yielding a PaiNN-based lead model. The version of HydraGNN used to generate the outputs provided in this release is HydraGNN v5.0 (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0) The list of datasets used for the training of the graph foundation model is the following: 1) Alexandria [1] 2) ANI1x [2] 3) MPTrj [3] 4) Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [4] 5) Open Catalyst 2022 (OC22) [5] 6) Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) [6] 7) Open Direct ir Capture 2023 (ODAC23) [7] 8) Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) [8] 9) Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) [9] 10) OMol25-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with zero total charge) 11) OMol25-non-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with non-zero total charge) 12) Open Polymers 2026 (OPoly2026) [10] 13) Nabla2DFT [11] 14) QCML [12] 15) QM7X [reference 13] 16) transition1x [14] Dataset references: [1] J. Schmidt et al., “A dataset of 175k stable and metastable materials calculated with the PBEsol and SCAN functionals,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 64, 2022. [2] J. S. Smith et al., “The ANI-1ccx and ANI-1x data sets, coupled-cluster and density functional theory properties for molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, p. 134, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0473-z [3] A. Jain et al., “Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,” APL Materials, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 011002, 07 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 [4] L. Chanussot et al., “Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 6059–6072, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 [5] K. Tran et al., “Open catalyst 2022 (oc22) dataset and challenges for oxidation electrocatalysts,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3066–3084, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.2c05426 [6] S. J. Sahoo et al., “The open catalyst 2025 (oc25) dataset and models for solid-liquid interfaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17862, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17862 [7] A. Sriram et al., “The open DAC 2023 dataset and challenges for sorbent discovery in direct air capture,” ACS Central Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 923–941, 2024. [8] L. Barroso-Luque et al., “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771 [9] D. S. Levine et al., “The open molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, evaluations, and models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08762 [10] D. S. Levine et al., The open polymers 2026 (OPoly26) dataset and evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23117, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23117 [11] K. Khrabrov et al., “Nabla2dft: A universal quantum chemistry dataset of drug-like molecules and a benchmark for neural network potentials,” in NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=ElUrNM9U8c [12] S. Ganscha et al., “The QCML dataset, quantum chemistry reference data from 33.5M DFT and 14.7B semi-empirical calculations,” Scientific Data, vol. 12, p. 406, 2025. [13] J. Hoja et al., “QM7-X, a comprehensive dataset of quantum-mechanical properties spanning the chemical space of small organic molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 8, p. 43, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00812-2 [14] M. Schreiner et al., “Transition1x - a dataset for building generalizable reactive machine learning potentials,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 779, 2022. The folder "datasets_ADIOS2_format" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "datasets_ADIOS2_format" directory contains 2 sub-directories, one for the version "v1" of the datasets and one for the version "v2" of the datasets. The version "v1" of the datasets provides values of the total energy as they are extracted from the original data as it was released by the respective institutions. The version "v2" of the datasets provides values of the energy that have been realigned. The realignment was performed by training a linear regression model that predicts the total energy as a function of the chemical composition of the atomistic structure, and then subtract such prediction from the original value of the total energy. Both folders "v1" and "v2" contain 16 sub-directories, each corresponding to an ADIOS2-formatted dataset The folder "DeepHyper-results" contains the configurational files and model's parameters for all the 186 HPO trials that were successfully completed by the scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) runs on Frontier. The content of the folder "DeepHyper-results" I structured as follows: 1) task-list.txt: list of mpnn name, jobid, and deephyper task id 2) gfm_${MPNN}_${JOBID}_0.${TASKID}: run directory with checkpoint files 3) gfm_${MPNN}: deephyper summary directory (*.csv) for each specific MPNN type 4) deephyper-experiment-${JOBID}: output and error logs for each job The file "deephyper-sorted.csv" contains the details of each HydraGNN model built and tested by HPO, obtained by merging the (*.csv) filed from each HPO run executed. Out of all the HPO trials, we selected 10 to continue the training of the respective HydraGNN models. Due to limited computational budget available in the LRN070 allocation we could not complete the training till convergence for all these 10 selected models. The folder "models" contains multiple sub-folders, one per each HydraGNN model trained. Each model sub-folder contains the parameters of each HydraGNN model, with multiple checkpoint-restarts. The list of sub-folders are as follows: 1) multidataset_hpo-BEST1-fp64 2) multidataset_hpo-BEST2-fp64 3) multidataset_hpo-BEST3-fp64 4) multidataset_hpo-BEST4-fp64 5) multidataset_hpo-BEST5-fp64 6) multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64 7) multidataset_hpo-BEST7-fp64 8) multidataset_hpo-BEST8-fp64 9) multidataset_hpo-BEST9-fp64 10) multidataset_hpo-BEST10-fp64 Within each one of these folders, additional auxiliary log files are provided with descriptions about how the training proceeded. The lead PaiNN-model is contained inside "multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64". The file "mlp_branch_weights" contains the parameters of the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) used to reconcile the predictions of the 16 output decoding heads of the HydragNN architectures. The MLP takes in input the chemical composition of the atomistic structure and predicts averaging weights to linearly mix the predictions of each output decoding head toward consolidating them into a single one. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 1.1 billion atomistic structures randomly generated. Each structures is associated with energy and forces predicted with the lead-PaiNN model combined with the MLP model for reconciliation of the multi-branch predictions generated by the 16 output decoding heads. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 9,300 (*.tar.gz) subdirectories, one per Frontier compute node used to execute the inference at exascale. Once uncompressed, each (*.tar.gz) subdirectory contains an ADIOS2 (*.bp) file container, where each atomistic structure is stored as a PyTorch-Geometric Data object. The file "export_dataset_environment_variables.sh" contains the environment variables that need to be set before running the HydraGNN code to reproduce the results provided in this dataset release. The code that can be used to load the ADIOS2 files, load HydraGNN models, and run inference is available at: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2026

Data, model inputs, and analysis scripts associated with a manuscript on stream intermittency controls across spatial scales in Pacific Northwest watersheds

NOTE: The manuscript associated with this data package is currently in review. The data may be revised based on reviewer feedback. Upon manuscript acceptance, this data package will be updated with the final dataset and additional metadata. This data package is associated with the manuscript "Hydroclimatic Memory and Watershed Template Shape Stream Intermittency: Multi-scale Attribution Using Process-based Simulation and Explainable ML" by Niroula et al. (2026), submitted to Water Resources Research (WRR). The study investigates the dominant controls on stream intermittency across local, reach, and watershed scales using a coupled process-based simulation and explainable machine-learning framework. Long-term daily simulations from the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS) were used to generate wetness states and ponded-depth responses over river-corridor cells. These ATS outputs were then aggregated across scales and used to train XGBoost (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) models. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) was applied to quantify the relative importance of hydroclimatic forcings, watershed template attributes, and antecedent-memory effects in shaping intermittency behavior. The analysis is carried out for three contrasting Pacific Northwest watersheds: Oak Creek (OCW), American River Watershed (ARW), and H.J. Andrews (HJA). Across these testbeds, the package contains ATS-ready watershed inputs, ATS run configuration and selected output files, model-evaluation data products, intermittency-analysis datasets, machine-learning target-feature tables, SHAP outputs, and notebooks used to organize, analyze, and visualize results. At a high level, the package documents a workflow in which ATS provides the physically based simulation backbone and explainable machine learning is used as a post-processing attribution tool. The contents are intended to support interpretation of the manuscript figures and results, provide context for how intermittency metrics were generated at multiple scales, and preserve the key artifacts needed to understand and reuse the analysis workflow. The package contains a high-level directory summary file (`summary.txt`) and four main content folders (1) `evaluation_plots` contains evaluation figures and supporting evaluation datasets; (2) `intermittency_plots` contains intermittency-focused analysis notebook and prepared datasets; (3) `ml-training-and-shap_values_plots` contains ML training inputs, SHAP outputs, and figure-generation notebooks; and (4) `watershed_mesh_and_ats_input` contains ATS model setup materials, forcing inputs, geometry, and selected run files. More specifically, the `evaluation_plots` folder contains the notebook used for ATS evaluation plotting and site-specific evaluation datasets. These include evapotranspiration and water-balance products for three watersheds, as well as an Oak Creek field-measurement discharge file. The `intermittency_plots` folder contains the notebook used for intermittency analysis and the prepared datasets used to analyze intermittent and non-intermittent wetness behavior across the study watersheds. The `ml-training-and-shap_values_plots` folder contains notebooks and outputs for the machine-learning and explainability workflow. This includes the main XGBoost and SHAP notebook(s), a beeswarm plotting notebook, target-feature tables for machine-learning training, SHAP summary tables, and per-sample SHAP value archives. The `watershed_mesh_and_ats_input` folder contains ATS-related watershed inputs and supporting materials. This includes mesh and shape products, ATS-readable LAI and meteorological forcing inputs, selected ATS spinup and transient-run files, and a watershed workflow example notebook. Subdirectories are organized by watershed where applicable.All files are .cpg (codepage files), .csv (comma-separated values), .dbf (database files), .exo (Exodus mesh format), .h5 (HDF5 format), .ipynb (Jupyter notebooks), .pkl (Python pickle), .prj (projection files), .sh (shell scripts), .shp (shapefile geometry), .shx (shapefile index), .txt (text files), or .xml (markup data).

Advanced Terrestrial Simulator↗

DOE OSTI2026

Data for Zheng et al. (2025), "AquaMEND: Reconciling multiple impacts of salinization on soil carbon biogeochemistry"

Soil salinization, exacerbated by climate change, poses a global threat to coastal ecosystems and soil function. Salinity affects soil carbon cycling by directly impacting microbial activity and indirectly altering soil physicochemical properties, but current models inadequately represent these complexities. This dataset contains the observational and modeling data from Zheng et al. (2025), which described a process-based modeling framework that couples soil solution chemistry with microbial carbon cycling reactions to study the impacts of soil salinization. This conceptual model is implemented numerically into the open-source geochemical program PHREEQC 3.0 (Parkhurst and Appelo, 2013). This dataset consists of: - Figure2_AquaMEND_salinity_buffer: Contains model simulation outputs to assess the impact of three different cation exchange and surface complexation processes on salinity buffering (Fig. 2 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure3_Salinity_function: Contains salinity function fitting for literature data (Fig. 3 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure4_AquaMEND_microbial_mechanisms: Contains model simulation outputs for testing various microbial process-based hypotheses related to soil salinization, including microbial mortality, carbon use efficiency (CUE), extracellular enzyme activity, and other microbial mechanisms (Fig. 4 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure5_AquaMEND_Redox: Contains on model simulation outputs to evaluate shifts among key redox processes, such as aerobic respiration, sulfate reduction, and methanogenesis (Fig.5 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure6_AquaMEND_sorption: Contains on model simulation outputs for investigating the effects of salinity on dissolved organic matter (DOM) sorption and desorption processes (Fig. 6 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure7_AquaMEND_process_couple: Contains on model simulation outputs for exploring coupled biotic-abiotic processes and their interactions (Fig. 7 from Zheng et al. 2025). - data: Includes datasets used to develop salinity response functions and evaluate salinity buffering capacity. Datasets for MEND model calibration. - database: Contains the `.dat` file required by PHREEQC for model execution. - README.md: A Markdown plain text file describing the computational tools and directories. Files are a mixture of plain text CSV (comma-separated value) and plain text *.dat files written by the model; no special software is required to read them.

EARTH SCIENCE > AGRICULTURE > SOILS > SOIL SALINIT↗

DOE OSTI2025

VARI3D & PERSENT: Perturbation and Sensitivity Analysis

The nodal diffusion method is one of the most widely used approaches in modern reactor analysis. In the nodal diffusion method, a coarse multi-group set of “homogenized” parameters is constructed such that the complex geometry of a reactor core along with the energy dependence of neutron and gamma ray cross sections in a nuclear reactor are conserved in the simpler geometry. The homogenization is typically done on a fuel assembly level as is the case in the DIF3D code developed at Argonne National Laboratory. The nodal methodology is used primarily to predict fuel cycle behavior of nuclear systems of which there is a substantial amount of validation in the literature. Another use of the nodal method is to obtain reactivity coefficients and kinetics parameters for use in a safety analysis of a given nuclear reactor. While there are many ways to obtain reactivity worth and kinetics parameters, the work presented in this manuscript is unique as it provides the user with the ability to compute reactivity worths, kinetics parameters, and cross section sensitivities with a Cartesian and hexagonal geometry based transport code. This manuscript serves as a single manual for two separate codes: VARI3D and PERSENT. The VARI3D code (VARIational 3D) is based upon the classic finite difference diffusion theory solver available in DIF3D. The PERSENT code (PERturbation and SENitivity for Transport) is based upon the variational nodal method employed in DIF3D termed VARIANT. The VARIANT solver was added to DIF3D in 1995 and has seen continued development and use for the last 18 years. Because VARI3D primarily uses deprecated coding practices, rather than incorporating the perturbation and sensitivity treatments for transport within VARI3D, a new coding development was built using modern Fortran coding. The primary purpose of this manual is to describe the theory behind PERSENT (and by convenience, that of VARI3D) and discuss the input and output of PERSENT along with giving potential users an idea of how to use it. While this manuscript does describe the input and output of VARI3D, the PERSENT code is intended to be the replacement capability of VARI3D as PERSENT can generate nearly identical (if not superior) diffusion theory results. In this manuscript, the relevant aspects of generalized perturbation theory and exact perturbation theory that apply to both VARI3D and PERSENT are covered. The input and output of VARI3D is displayed by excerpting several of the example problems. Similarly, the input and output of PERSENT is displayed along with tips on how best to use the code. Note that the input and output of the inhomogeneous solver wrapped around DIF3D (DIF3D_IFS) is also discussed as it is needed to carry out some of the sensitivities in PERSENT such as reaction rate ratios. This manuscript describes several perturbation and sensitivity problems, and the results computed using PERSENT. From these sections, potential users should find that PERSENT provides not only the typical tables of numbers desired in perturbation and sensitivity analysis work, but also can visually plot the result for a more thorough understanding of the space and energy distribution (Section 5). Overall, PERSENT is observed to produce accurate reactivity worths and sensitivities for the displayed set of test problems and clearly demonstrates the need to have a transport-based sensitivity capability as evident from the thousands of percent errors observed in the 21-group hexagonal fast reactor problem (covered in Section 7). The uncertainty calculation capability is described in Section 3 and demonstrated in Section 7.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2024

BSEC VPRM 10m Hourly Biogenic Fluxes in Baltimore (2021)

Model outputs from the Vegetation Photosynthesis and Respiration Model (VPRM: version from Horne et al. in prep). Model remote sensing inputs come from Sential 2-derived EVI and LSWI. Model meteorological inputs for two-meter air temperature and shortwave incoming come from the BSEC WRF 2021 Control Run (Foust, W. 2023). Plant functional Types (PFTs) are spatially classified using the Chesapeake Bay Program 2018 land use land cover product. The final biogenic flux (µmol CO2 m^-2 s^-1) outputs of NEE, RESP, and GEE are a weighted average based on the portion of PFTs within the cell. Individual PFT outputs are saved inside PFT directories (e.g., Crops, Grass, etc.) inside the specific month directory. Model outputs are denoted as a negative flux into the land system (i.e., photosynthesis) and a positive flux as a net release into the overlying atmosphere. Respiration (RESP) fluxes are positive and combine heterotrophic (only soil) and autotrophic sources. Gross ecosystem exchange (GEE) is a negative flux driven by only photosynthetic activity from vegetation, and the Net ecosystem exchange (NEE) is the sum of the two (i.e., NEE=RESP+GEE). Data Characteristics Spatial Resolution: 10m Temporal Resolution: Hourly File Format: VPRM_ _BSEC. .tif (Hour is in UTC) For more information on the model results, please email Jason Horne (jph6488@psu.edu). References: Foust, W. (2023). BSEC WRF 2021 Control Run Output (v0.1.0) [Data set]. MSD-LIVE Data Repository. https://data.msdlive.org/records/m0e6m-vvq17

Baltimore↗

DOE OSTI2026

Input specific neural networks

Neural networks have emerged as powerful tools for mapping between inputs and outputs. However, their black-box nature limits the ability to encode or impose specific structural relationships between inputs and outputs. Many scientific and engineering problems, such as constitutive modeling in solid mechanics, require networks that can enforce convexity, monotonicity, or other structural constraints to ensure physical consistency. Here, we introduce the Input Specific Neural Network (ISNN), a new architecture that enables multiple, distinct constraints to be imposed on different input subsets for scalar-valued outputs. This framework unifies convex, monotone–convex, monotone, and arbitrary mappings within a single network for the first time. Two ISNN architectures with analytical first- and second-order derivatives are developed. We demonstrate the performance on synthetic toy problems, inverse problems in isotropic hyperelasticity, and finite element simulations. ISNNs achieve improved extrapolation behavior, require fewer invariant inputs than standard input convex networks for polyconvex potentials, and enable significant computational savings via manual differentiation. We also show how ISNNs can be used to learn structural relationships between inputs and outputs via a binary gating mechanism. Particularly, ISNNs are employed to model a homogenized anisotropic free energy potential in a decoupled multiscale setting. The network learns whether or not the potential should be modeled as polyconvex and retains only the relevant layers while using the minimum number of inputs. ISNNs provide a flexible foundation for embedding structural priors into neural networks, enhancing both interpretability and stability. They are broadly applicable across computational mechanics and other scientific domains requiring constrained functional relationships.

Jadoon, Asghar A. [Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX (Uni↗

DOE OSTI2025

A resolution independent neural operator

The Deep operator network (DeepONet) is a powerful yet simple neural operator architecture that utilizes two deep neural networks to learn mappings between infinite-dimensional function spaces. This architecture is highly flexible, allowing the evaluation of the solution field at any location within the desired domain. However, it imposes a strict constraint on the input space, requiring all input functions to be discretized at the same locations; this limits its practical applications. Here, in this work, we introduce a general framework for operator learning from input–output data with arbitrary number and locations of sensors. This begins by introducing a resolution-independent DeepONet (RI-DeepONet), enabling it to handle input functions that are arbitrarily, but sufficiently finely, discretized. To this end, we propose two dictionary learning algorithms to adaptively learn a set of appropriate continuous basis functions, parameterized as implicit neural representations (INRs), from correlated signals defined on arbitrary point cloud data. These basis functions are then used to project arbitrary input function data as a point cloud onto an embedding space (i.e., a vector space of finite dimensions) with dimensionality equal to the dictionary size, which can be directly used by DeepONet without any architectural changes. In particular, we utilize sinusoidal representation networks (SIRENs) as trainable INR basis functions. The introduced dictionary learning algorithms are then used in a similar way to learn an appropriate dictionary of basis functions for the output function data, which defines a new neural operator architecture referred to as the R esolution I ndependent N eural O perator (RINO). In the RINO, the operator learning task simplifies to learning a mapping from the coefficients of input basis functions to the coefficients of output basis functions. We demonstrate the robustness and applicability of RINO in handling arbitrarily (but sufficiently richly) sampled input and output functions during both training and inference through several numerical examples.

Deep operator network (DeepONet)↗