Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “distributed inference”

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.

898 records · Page 50
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Bayesian Poroelastic Aquifer Characterization From InSAR Surface Deformation Data. Part I: Maximum A Posteriori Estimate

Characterizing the properties of groundwater aquifers is essential for predicting aquifer response and managing groundwater resources. In this work, we develop a high-dimensional scalable Bayesian inversion framework governed by a three-dimensional quasi-static linear poroelastic model to characterize lateral permeability variations in groundwater aquifers. In this work, we determine the maximum a posteriori (MAP) point of the posterior permeability distribution from centimeter-level surface deformation measurements obtained from Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR). The scalability of our method to high parameter dimension is achieved through the use of adjoint-based derivatives, inexact Newton methods to determine the MAP point, and a Mat´ern class sparse prior precision operator. Together, these guarantee that the MAP point is found at a cost, measured in number of forward/adjoint poroelasticity solves, that is independent of the parameter dimension. We apply our methodology to a test case for a municipal well in Mesquite, Nevada, in which InSAR and GPS surface deformation data are available. We solve problems with up to 320,824 state variable degrees of freedom (DOFs) and 16,896 parameter DOFs. A consistent treatment of noise level is employed so that the aquifer characterization result does not depend on the pixel spacing of surface deformation data. Our results show that the use of InSAR data significantly improves characterization of lateral aquifer heterogeneity, and the InSAR-based aquifer characterization recovers complex lateral displacement trends observed by independent daily GPS measurements.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Ordovician-Cambrian Units: Hierarchical Evaluation of Geologic Carbon Storage Resource Estimates

The Indiana Geological and Water Survey (IGWS) led subtask 1.1 to assess the regional distribution and estimate the storage capacity of Ordovician-Cambrian stratigraphic units located within the partnership region. A comprehensive data set of wireline logs and petrophysical information was used to generate these interpretations. These data include core analysis for porosity and permeability, mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP), and existing well data including location and stratigraphic information. This report includes storage resource estimates (SREs) for three potential storage reservoirs(limestone and dolostone from the Upper Ordovician Trenton Limestone/Black River Group and equivalent units, the Middle Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone, and primary target reservoir rocks of the Lower Ordovician and Upper Cambrian Knox Supergroup and equivalent units) calculated using six methodologies: (1) a fixed value of porosity of 10 percent in all units evaluated; (2) a unique average porosity (per well) from wireline-derived porosity (neutron, sonic, and/or density porosity for each unit); (3) porosity values from core analysis; (4) a depth-dependent porosity model (Knox Supergroup only); (5) porosity based on a model based on petrophysical facies; and (6) SREs using National Energy Technology Laboratory’s CO2 Storage prospeCtive Resource Estimation Excel aNalysis (CO2-SCREEN beta V2). All methods used the same values for thickness for each unit. However, the areal extent of each assessment was limited by the data available for each method. Estimated volumes were calculated in 1-by-1 kilometer grid cells and summarized as county and total stratigraphic unit volumes. The resultant SREs mass are displayed using boxplots, which allow for comparing data statistics (mean values and variability) between methods. Differences observed in SRE results from the six methods are mainly attributable to differences in the data and conceptual models used to interpret or estimate porosity in each method. Based on this systematic variability between methods, it is inferred that methods 1, 4, and 6 are best used for regional-scale reconnaissance estimates of storage capacity while methods 2, 3, and 5 are more appropriate for local scales where more data is required. All estimates are data-density dependent and different methods require different amounts of data for reasonable assessments. ArcMap 10.5.1 software was used to portray SREs to help visualize spatial variance of estimates for each methodology, and more importantly, to highlight those areas having the greatest total storage potential estimates.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2022

Reconstructing parent microstructures in martensitic and pearlitic Ti-Cu

Evaluating the microstructural evolution of parent phases has long been a challenge in metals with a partial or complete solid state transformation. Most parent microstructure evolution has to be inferred from the product microstructure, with some information permanently lost. Parent microstructure reconstructions relying on orientation relationships and EBSD data are a useful tool to overcome this challenge, though much background knowledge is required to do so. Here, this work introduces a reconstruction process for a eutectoid composition Ti-Cu binary alloy to evaluate the high temperature β-Ti phase from martensitic and pearlitic product microstructures. Martensitic microstructures were accurately reconstructed, enabling elucidation of β-Ti grain size and texture, and the employed script included for scientific reference. Pearlitic microstructures did not reconstruct effectively with the current process. However, new insight into the interfacial crystallographic orientations of pearlitic Ti-Cu microstructures was gleaned via this analysis, and future investigations of interest are discussed accordingly. Ultimately, these findings demonstrate tools widely implemented on conventional titanium and ferrous alloys can also be applied to understand parent microstructures in Ti-Cu and other alloys of emerging interest. This is especially of use as new manufacturing processes for such materials require understanding how parent phase microstructures respond to new, novel material processing such as AM.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Karhunen–Loève deep learning method for surrogate modeling and approximate Bayesian parameter estimation

We evaluate the performance of the Karhunen-Loève Deep Neural Network (KL-DNN) framework for surrogate modeling and approximate Bayesian parameter estimation in partial differential equation models. In the surrogate model, the Karhunen-Loève (KL) expansions are used for the dimensionality reduction of the number of unknown parameters and variables, and a deep neural network is employed to relate the reduced space of parameters to that of the state variables. The KL-DNN surrogate model is used to formulate a maximum-a-posteriori-like least-squares problem, which is randomized to draw samples of the posterior distribution of the parameters. We test the proposed framework for a hypothetical unconfined aquifer via comparison with the forward MODFLOW and inverse PEST++ iterative ensemble smoother (IES) solutions as well as the state-of-the-art Fourier neural operator (FNO) and deep operator networks (DeepONets) operator learning surrogate models. Our results show that the KL-DNN surrogate model outperforms FNO and DeepONet for forward predictions. For solving inverse problems, the randomized algorithm provides the same or more accurate Bayesian predictions of the parameters than IES as evidenced by the higher log-predictive probability of both the estimated parameter field and the forecast hydraulic head. The posterior mean obtained from the randomized algorithm is closer to the reference parameter field than that obtained with FNO as the maximum a posteriori estimate.

Approximate Bayesian inference↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data from: 'Abiotic influences on continuous conifer forest structure across a subalpine watershed'

This package archives the core data used for analysis and inference in 'Abiotic influences on continuous conifer forest structure across a subalpine watershed' (Worsham et al., 2025). All data were collected in the East River, Washington Gulch, Slate River, and Coal Creek watersheds of Colorado. In the paper, we quantified the relative influence of climate, topographic, edaphic, and geologic factors on conifer stand structure and composition, and their functional relationships, at the watershed scale. We used waveform LiDAR data to derive spatially continuous stand structure metrics. We fused these with a species-level classification map to estimate tree species abundance. We applied generalized additive and generalized boosted models to evaluate the covariability of structural and compositional metrics with abiotic variables. The package contains the essential products required for reproducing our analysis and the tables and figures reported in the publication. The products comprise four classes: (1) geospatial data, (2) tabular data used for inferential analysis, (3) tabular data describing analytical results and performance statistics, and (4) a data user guide. (1) includes discretized waveform LiDAR data, locations and attributes of individual tree crowns, sampling locations and domain boundaries, a canopy height model, and raster files of estimated forest structural and compositional metrics at 100 m grid scale. (2) includes all response and explanatory variable values applied in inferential models. Response variables include conifer forest stand density, basal area, 95th percentile height, quadratic mean diameter, and others. Explanatory variables include climatic water deficit, actual evapotranspiration, elevation, heat load, soil available water content, and others. (3) includes results of training and testing several individual tree detection (ITD) algorithms, as well as inferential modeling results. (4) is a PDF user guide for this data package, including detailed descriptions and data dictionaries for all files. The data package root contains 17 assets: 8 compressed tape archive (.tar.gz) files, 5 comma-separated values (.csv) files, 3 Geographic Tagged Image File Format (GeoTIFF) (.tif) files, and 1 Portable Document Format (.pdf) file. The compressed .tar.gz archives contain ESRI shapefiles (.shp) .tif, compressed LASer (.laz), and .csv files. The archives must first be decompressed using the widely distributed command-line software utility TAR. All other files, including constituent files within the .tar.gz archives, can be opened in the open-source R statistical computing environment. Alternatively, .csv files may also be read in any simple text editor software or Microsoft Excel. Geospatial files including .shp and .tif files can also be opened in GIS software, such as QGIS (open-source) or ESRI ArcGIS (proprietary). The .pdf Data User Guide can be read with Adobe Acrobat Reader or other compatible readers.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2025

Field intercomparison of ice nucleation measurements: the Fifth International Workshop on Ice Nucleation Phase 3 (FIN-03)

Abstract. The third phase of the Fifth International Ice Nucleation Workshop (FIN-03) was conducted at the Storm Peak Laboratory in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, in September 2015 to facilitate the intercomparison of instruments measuring ice-nucleating particles (INPs) in the field. Instruments included two online and four offline measurement systems for INPs, which are a subset of those utilized in the laboratory study that comprised the second phase of FIN (FIN-02). The composition of the total aerosols was characterized using the Particle Analysis by Laser Mass Spectrometry (PALMS) and Wideband Integrated Bioaerosol Sensor (WIBS) instruments, and aerosol size distributions were measured by a laser aerosol spectrometer (LAS). The dominant total particle compositions present during FIN-03 were composed of sulfates, organic compounds, and nitrates, as well as particles derived from biomass burning. Mineral-dust-containing particles were ubiquitous throughout and represented 67 % of supermicron particles. Total WIBS fluorescing particle concentrations for particles with diameters of > 0.5 µm were 0.04 ± 0.02 cm−3 (0.1 cm−3 highest; 0.02 cm−3 lowest), typical of the warm season in this region and representing ≈ 9 % of all particles in this size range as a campaign average. The primary focus of FIN-03 was the measurement of INP concentrations via immersion freezing at temperatures > −33 °C. Additionally, some measurements were made in the deposition nucleation regime at these same temperatures, representing one of the first efforts to include both mechanisms within a field campaign. INP concentrations via immersion freezing agreed within factors ranging from nearly 1 to 5 times on average between matched (time and temperature) measurements, and disagreements only rarely exceeded 1 order of magnitude for sampling times coordinated to within 3 h. Comparisons were restricted to temperatures lower than −15 °C due to the limits of detection related to sample volumes and very low INP concentrations. Outliers of up to 2 orders of magnitude occurred between −25 and −18 °C; a better agreement was seen at higher and lower temperatures. Although the 5–10 factor agreement of INP measurements found in FIN-03 aligned with the results of the FIN-02 laboratory comparison phase, giving confidence in progress of this measurement field, this level of agreement still equates to temperature uncertainties of 3.5 to 5 °C that may not be sufficient for numerical cloud modeling applications that utilize INP information. INP activity in the immersion-freezing mode was generally found to be an order of magnitude or more, making it more efficient than in the deposition regime at 95 %–99 % water relative humidity, although this limited data set should be augmented in future efforts. To contextualize the study results, an assessment was made of the composition of INPs during the late-summer to early-fall period of this study inferred through comparison to existing ice nucleation parameterizations and through measurement of the influence of thermal and organic carbon digestion treatments on immersion-freezing ice nucleation activity. Consistent with other studies in continental regions, biological INPs dominated at temperatures of > −20 °C and sometimes colder, while arable dust-like or other organic-influenced INPs were inferred to dominate below −20 °C.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Flexible AI Models for Grid Resilience

The rapid growth in size and complexity of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models has led to increased energy demands, posing a threat to the reliability of the existing power grid. This project addresses the challenge of highly intermittent and energy-intensive inference workloads by (1) developing fidelity-adaptive neural networks capable of dynamic response to grid conditions and (2) integrating these networks with power flow simulations to assess their impact on power grid reliability. We will explore both top-down and bottom-up approaches to create hierarchies of submodels that provide a controlled trade-off between power draw and prediction accuracy. The top-down method utilizes NN pruning to reduce a flagship model into progressively smaller, energy-efficient variants. The bottom-up approach employs geometrically principled weight setting strategies to construct depth-efficient models from the ground up. A real-time hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) platform will be developed to simulate a scaled AC power grid, integrating live AI workload power draw and enabling dynamic model switching in response to grid feedback. This work will provide a novel framework for evaluating the impact of flexible AI/ML workloads on grid performance and establish new methodologies for energy-aware computing in data centers. The outcomes will demonstrate that adaptive AI/ML can play a critical role in improving grid stability while advancing NREL's leadership in energy-efficient computing research.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
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 OSTI2022

Correcting for filter-based aerosol light absorption biases at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program's Southern Great Plains site using photoacoustic measurements and machine learning

Abstract. Measurement of light absorption of solar radiation by aerosols is vital for assessing direct aerosol radiative forcing, which affects local and global climate. Low-cost and easy-to-operate filter-based instruments, such as the Particle Soot Absorption Photometer (PSAP), that collect aerosols on a filter and measure light attenuation through the filter are widely used to infer aerosol light absorption. However, filter-based absorption measurements are subject to artifacts that are difficult to quantify. These artifacts are associated with the presence of the filter medium and the complex interactions between the filter fibers and accumulated aerosols. Various correction algorithms have been introduced to correct for the filter-based absorption coefficient measurements toward predicting the particle-phase absorption coefficient (Babs). However, the inability of these algorithms to incorporate into their formulations the complex matrix of influencing parameters such as particle asymmetry parameter, particle size, and particle penetration depth results in prediction of particle-phase absorption coefficients with relatively low accuracy. The analytical forms of corrections also suffer from a lack of universal applicability: different corrections are required for rural and urban sites across the world. In this study, we analyzed and compared 3 months of high-time-resolution ambient aerosol absorption data collected synchronously using a three-wavelength photoacoustic absorption spectrometer (PASS) and PSAP. Both instruments were operated on the same sampling inlet at the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program's Southern Great Plains (SGP) user facility in Oklahoma. We implemented the two most commonly used analytical correction algorithms, namely, Virkkula (2010) and the average of Virkkula (2010) and Ogren (2010)–Bond et al. (1999) as well as a random forest regression (RFR) machine learning algorithm to predict Babs values from the PSAP's filter-based measurements. The predicted Babs was compared against the reference Babs measured by the PASS. The RFR algorithm performed the best by yielding the lowest root mean square error of prediction. The algorithm was trained using input datasets from the PSAP (transmission and uncorrected absorption coefficient), a co-located nephelometer (scattering coefficients), and the Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (mass concentration of non-refractory aerosol particles). A revised form of the Virkkula (2010) algorithm suitable for the SGP site has been proposed; however, its performance yields approximately 2-fold errors when compared to the RFR algorithm. To generalize the accuracy and applicability of our proposed RFR algorithm, we trained and tested it on a dataset of laboratory measurements of combustion aerosols. Input variables to the algorithm included the aerosol number size distribution from the Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer, absorption coefficients from the filter-based Tricolor Absorption Photometer, and scattering coefficients from a multiwavelength nephelometer. The RFR algorithm predicted Babs values within 5 % of the reference Babs measured by the multiwavelength PASS during the laboratory experiments. Thus, we show that machine learning approaches offer a promising path to correct for biases in long-term filter-based absorption datasets and accurately quantify their variability and trends needed for robust radiative forcing determination.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Review and meta-analysis of electron temperatures from high-intensity laser–solid interactions

The accelerated electron spectrum from high-intensity laser–solid interaction is often conveniently described using a Boltzmann distribution, whose temperature is known within the field as the hot-electron temperature. The importance of the electron temperature is highlighted by the sheer number of experimental and simulation studies on the subject over the past three decades. Recently, multi-kJ, multi-ps pulses have yielded electron spectra with temperatures far beyond the expected ponderomotive result. Expressions that predict the electron temperature considering laser parameters beyond intensity and wavelength have been developed, albeit using small datasets. In this review, we present what is, to the best of our knowledge, the largest dataset of electron temperatures gathered from experimental measurements and particle-in-cell simulations. This dataset allows us to compare existing analytical and empirical hot-electron temperature scaling models over a wide parameter range. We also develop new scaling models that incorporate the laser pulse duration of the laser and the plasma scale length. Three models that include pulse-duration and scale length dependence are especially successful at predicting both simulated and experimental data. The dataset will soon be made publicly available to encourage further investigation.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at 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 OSTI2026

Permafrost Thaw, Uneven Subsidence and Projected Drying of Ice-wedge Polygon Tundra: Modeling Archive

This dataset is a model archive of the paper Permafrost Thaw, Uneven Subsidence and Projected Drying of Ice-wedge Polygon Tundra (in prep) to support a modeling study investigating how projected increases in Arctic temperature and precipitation will jointly influence hydrologic conditions in ice-rich tundra landscapes. With this dataset, this study is to address the research question: Will Arctic tundra landscapes become wetter or drier with increasing precipitation and temperature in the future when thaw-induced ground subsidence and associated microtopographic evolution are represented? The simulations focus on ice-wedge polygon tundra, a widespread form of ice-rich permafrost terrain that is highly sensitive to thaw-driven landscape change. This dataset contains model input and output data for four study watersheds in Alaska: Anaktuvuk, Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow), Brooks Foothills, and Prudhoe Bay. Simulations were performed using the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS, v1.5), a physics-rich integrated surface–subsurface hydrologic model. For each watershed, ten modeling cases were performed representing two landscape evolution conditions (with subsidence and without subsidence) combined with five climate forcing scenarios derived from Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP5, SSP5 with precipitation trend, SSP2, SSP2 with precipitation trend, and SSP2 with double precipitation trend). Particularly, for each watershed under the forcing SSP2 with precipitation trend, there are two additional simulations considering spatially heterogeneous subsidence distributions: one assumes randomly distributed scaling and the other includes elevation dependent distribution scaling. These simulations span 1980–2099 and include spin-up runs (1980–2009) followed by transient projections (2010–2099). To facilitate reproducibility of simulations, all datasets are organized by watershed. For each study watershed, the dataset contains: (1) Pre-partitioned mesh files for 32-core modeling (.par.32.XX), located in EACH_WATERSHED/mesh/basin; and also a non-partitioned mesh file (.exo) located in EACH_WATERSHED/mesh; (2) Climate forcings corresponding to the five SSP scenarios (.h5), located in EACH_WATERSHED/data; (3) Final states (.h5) from column spin-up modeling used to initialize historical watershed-scale spin-up runs from 1980 to 2009, located in EACH_WATERSHED/PreSpinupHistorical; (4) Final states (.h5) of historical watershed-scale spin-up runs from 1980 to 2009 used to initialize projection runs, located in EACH_WATERSHED/Spinup_daymetERA5; (5) ATS modeling input files (.xml), located in EACH_WATERSHED/EACH_SIMULATION_SCENARIO/inputfiles; (6) ATS modeling output files (.dat), located in in EACH_WATERSHED/EACH_SIMULATION_SCENARIO/combined_obs; (7) For the Brooks Foothills watershed, additional spatial model outputs are provided (.h5) for selected years (2033 and 2093) used to generate spatial figures in this study, located in Brooksfoothills/EACH_SIMULATION_SCENARIO/results-WITH/WITHOUT_SUBSIDENCE-year2033/2093. All data files with suffix .h5 can be accessible through Python h5py, and all data files with suffix of .dat can be imported by Python pandas. Mesh file with .exo can be visualized through Paraview or read by Python netCDF. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments in the Arctic (NGEE Arctic) project is a research effort to reduce uncertainty in the Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) by developing a predictive understanding of Arctic tundra ecosystems underlain by permafrost and to quantify feedbacks from the Arctic tundra to the Earth system. NGEE Arctic is supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. Over Phases 1–3, observations made by the NGEE Arctic team across a gradient of permafrost landscapes in Arctic Alaska improved the representation of tundra processes in the land surface component of E3SM (the E3SM Land Model, ELM). Model improvements emphasized unique aspects of permafrost environments and explored reductions in model complexity while retaining predictive power. The Arctic-informed ELM developed by NGEE Arctic has been used to make novel predictions on processes ranging from permafrost thaw to soil biogeochemical cycling to Earth system feedbacks associated with the unique characteristics of tundra plants. In Phase 4, the NGEE Arctic team is evaluating our new predictive understanding under novel conditions across the Arctic domain. In collaboration with partners at long-term pan-Arctic research sites we are examining whether an Arctic-informed ELM can faithfully simulate interactions among surface and subsurface processes at site, regional, and pan-Arctic scales. In turn, we are using variety of tools to dynamically extend and evaluate ELM inference, with an emphasis on data synthesis and pan-Arctic model evaluation, reintegration of code with an evolving E3SM, scaling across heterogeneous Arctic landscapes, and the appropriate representation of the impacts of increasingly frequent Arctic disturbances.

EARTH SCIENCE > ATMOSPHERE > PRECIPITATION↗
DOE OSTI2024

A Computational Review of Privacy-Preserving Mechanisms for the Smart Grid

Smart grid technologies have rapidly become one of the largest and most comprehensive sources of data for the modern utility. For the most part, data streams are seen as an essential tool that enable utilities to carry their day-to-day business operations, but they also create the need for efficient and secure data management strategies. In the context of the smart grid, ensuring data privacy is becoming an increasing concern due to a combination of factors that range from shifts in operational paradigms and rapid technology evolution to changes in legislation. Furthermore, researchers have highlighted the risks associated with improperly protected energy records. For example, energy consumption data from homes could be used to infer the behaviors and habits of home occupants through activity recognition or user profiling (Fan, 2017), which may lead to unfair service pricing, targeted advertising, or other personal security violations. Similarly, Electric Vehicles’ (EVs) charging metadata could be used to reveal private information about the owner such as their payment methods, preferred charging stations, and other locational and timing information that could be used to reconstruct the vehicle owner’s behaviors. The privacy of user data, even when used for statistical analysis or machine learning training processes, also needs to be carefully considered, as an individual’s private traits may still be vulnerable if their inclusion/exclusion greatly impacts the result or could be linked to a public dataset through cross-reference. The breach of user privacy also has severe impacts for organizations that store, transmit, or work on the data in the form of diminishing the public’s trust in them while potentially incurring legal consequences (e.g., fines and suspensions under the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, etc.). Because of these risks, several privacy-preserving mechanisms are available to help organizations comply with privacy legislations and prevent the unauthorized and malicious use of user data. In light of these concerns, this report focuses on performing a computational review of privacy-preserving mechanisms that have received a significant amount of interest in literature. It specifically focuses on 1) homomorphic encryption, 2) zero-knowledge proofs, 3) differential privacy, and 4) federated learning. It is worth noting that although many of the methods presented in this document rely on cryptographic primitives, their intent is not to provide perfect secrecy, but rather to enable users to maintain privacy, and thus they shall not be compared or equated to other constructs that are aimed to address cybersecurity constructs.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Synthesizing Stellar Populations in South Pole Telescope Galaxy Clusters. I. Ages of Quiescent Member Galaxies at 0.3 < $\textit{z}$ < 1.4

Using stellar population synthesis models to infer star formation histories (SFHs), we analyze photometry and spectroscopy of a large sample of quiescent galaxies that are members of Sunyaev–Zel'dovich (SZ)-selected galaxy clusters across a wide range of redshifts. We calculate stellar masses and mass-weighted ages for 837 quiescent cluster members at 0.3 < $\textit{z}$ < 1.4 using rest-frame optical spectra and the Python-based Prospector framework, from 61 clusters in the SPT-GMOS Spectroscopic Survey (0.3 < $\textit{z}$ < 0.9) and three clusters in the SPT Hi-z cluster sample (1.25 < $\textit{z}$ < 1.4). We analyze spectra of subpopulations divided into bins of redshift, stellar mass, cluster mass, and velocity-radius phase-space location, as well as by creating composite spectra of quiescent member galaxies. We find that quiescent galaxies in our data set sample a diversity of SFHs, with a median formation redshift (corresponding to the lookback time from the redshift of observation to when a galaxy forms 50% of its mass, $t_{50}$) of $\textit{z}$ = 2.8 ± 0.5, which is similar to or marginally higher than that of massive quiescent field and cluster galaxy studies. We also report median age–stellar mass relations for the full sample (age of the universe at $t_{50}$ (Gyr) = 2.52 (±0.04)–1.66 (±0.12) log$_{10}(M/10^{11}M_⊙$)) and recover downsizing trends across stellar mass; we find that massive galaxies in our cluster sample form on aggregate ~0.75 Gyr earlier than lower-mass galaxies. We also find marginally steeper age–mass relations at high redshifts, and report a bigger difference in formation redshifts across stellar mass for fixed environment, relative to formation redshifts across environment for fixed stellar mass.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Testing T2K’s Bayesian constraints with priors in alternate parameterisations

Bayesian analysis results require a choice of prior distribution. In long-baseline neutrino oscillation physics, the usual parameterisation of the mixing matrix induces a prior that privileges certain neutrino mass and flavour state symmetries. Here we study the effect of privileging alternate symmetries on the results of the T2K experiment. We find that constraints on the level of CP violation (as given by the Jarlskog invariant) are robust under the choices of prior considered in the analysis. On the other hand, the degree of octant preference for the atmospheric angle depends on which symmetry has been privileged.

Bayesian Inference↗