Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “text analysis”

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.

106 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Reaching For New Physics With MeV-scale Reconstruction In The MicroBooNE LArTPC Neutrino Detector

Large neutrino liquid argon time projection chamber (LArTPC) experiments can broaden their physics reach by reconstructing MeV-Scale energy depositions, or blips, in their data. We demonstrate new calorimetric and particle discrimination capabilities at the MeV scale using reconstructed blips in MicroBooNE LArTPC data at Fermilab. A concentration of low-energy ($<$3 MeV) blips is observed around fiberglass mechanical support struts along the TPC edges, with spectral features consistent with the Compton edge of the 2.614 MeV $^{208}$Tl decay $\gamma$ ray. With these features we perform the electron energy scale calibration to few-percent precision and yield the specific activity of $^{208}$Tl in the struts, $(11.7 \pm 0.2 \text{(stat)} \pm 2.8 \text{(syst)})$ Bq/kg. Using cosmogenic blips above 3 MeV, we demonstrate the ability of large LArTPCs to discriminate low-energy proton and electron depositions. An enriched low-energy proton sample selected with this technique is smaller in data than in dedicated CORSIKA simulations, pointing to possible mismodeling in CORSIKA incident cosmic fluxes or Geant4 particle transport. These methods are applied to MicroBooNE's inclusive single-photon search, which reported a 2.2$\sigma$ excess below 600 MeV in shower energy for events with no reconstructed protons. By identifying and classifying blips near single-photon events selected by the WireCell reconstruction framework, a more comprehensive labeling of nearby hadronic activity is established: blips upstream of the shower axis indicate previously unidentified final-state protons, while elevated blip counts at wide angles signal final-state neutrons. Taken together with MiniBooNE's long-standing low-energy excess (LEE) and MicroBooNE electron-like and sterile neutrino searches disfavored as possible explanations of the MiniBooNE anomaly, this analysis motivates an expanded exploration of the single-photon channel in Fermilab's short-baseline LArTPC program. This thesis documents the current status of this enhanced analysis, which will form a key part of MicroBooNE's final low-energy-excess results.

Andrade Aldana, Diego Armando [IIT, Chicago (main)↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

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

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2025

ASME Code change proposal to implement new universal high temperature constitutive models for Section III, Division 5

This report completes work on a universal high temperature constitutive model suitable for use with the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Division 5 rules for the design by inelastic analysis of Class A nuclear reactor components. The goals of this work are to provide a simple model form that adequately captures the high temperature response of materials and can be applied to any future Code material. Additionally, the report describes an automated process for calibrating a model against test data. The idea is to simplify the effort required to generate a constitutive model for an arbitrary material, provided test data is available. This will accelerate the process of qualifying new Code materials in the future. In addition, the report provides calibrated models and detailed validation comparisons to test data for five currently-qualified or soon-to-be qualified materials: 316H, Grade 91, Alloy 800H, Alloy 617, and Alloy 709. The report surveys the available data for the remaining two ASME Class Materials --- 2.25Cr-1Mo and 304H --- concluding that there is enough data data to generate a model for 2.25Cr-1Mo steel provided some additional sources of non-public data can be included in the test database, but that a dedicated cyclic test campaign would be needed for 304H. Supplemental material includes the full text of an ASME Code change proposal to incorporate the models for the four currently-qualified Class A material, detailed validation comparisons to test data for the five material models, and input files for reference implementations of the constitutive models in the NEML and NEML2 modeling frameworks.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI1988

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 29, No. 3, July-September 1988]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 259 Fifteenth Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting by E. G. Silver; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 284 Reliability Technology to Improve and/or Maintain Emergency Diesel Generator Performance by S. Karimian and J. H. Taylor, 293 A Noise Diagnostics System for Operator Advice by G. Hessel, P. Liewers, P. Schumann, W. Schmitt, and F.-P. Weiss; PLANT SAFETY FEATURES: 307 A Passive Containment System for Advanced Light-Water Reactors by O. B. Falls, Jr., and F. W. Kleimola; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 318 Data Base Construction for a Computerized Radiological Risk Investigation System by L. M. Hively, J. E. Nyquist, J. L. Bledsoe, and A. L. Sjoreen, 326 Erratum to "Radiation Hormesis and Nuclear Safety," Vol. 29, No. 1; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 327 Operational Safety Experience and Passive Safety Testing at the Fast Flux Text Facility by Q. L. Baird, J. L. Rathbun, D. D. Stepnewski, R. L. Stover, and A. E. Waltar, 344 Backfilling of Independent Residual Heat Removal Systems in West Germany and Switzerland by G. Eckert and Y. Salomon, 353 Reactor Shutdown Experience Compiled by J. W. Cletcher, 356 Selected Safety-Related Events Compiled by G. A. Murphy, 363 Operating U.S. Power Reactors Compiled by E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 384 General Administrative Activities Compiled by E. G. Silver, 390 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides by D. S. Queener, 395 Status of Power-Reactor Projects Undergoing Licensing Review Compiled by E. G. Silver, 400 Proposed Rule Changes as of Mar. 31,1988; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 283 International ENS/ANS Conference on Thermal Reactor Safety "NUCSAFE 88", 317 Northwestern University Short Course on Radiation Safety, 407 Second International Seminar on Small- and Medium-Sized Nuclear Reactors, 407 International Workshop on New Developments in Occupational Dose Control and ALARA Implementation at Nuclear Power Plants and Similar Facilities, 408 Fourth International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics (NURETH-4), 404 The Authors.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI1988

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 29, No. 3, July-September 1988]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 259 Fifteenth Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting by E. G. Silver; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 284 Reliability Technology to Improve and/or Maintain Emergency Diesel Generator Performance by S. Karimian and J. H. Taylor, 293 A Noise Diagnostics System for Operator Advice by G. Hessel, P. Liewers, P. Schumann, W. Schmitt, and F.-P. Weiss; PLANT SAFETY FEATURES: 307 A Passive Containment System for Advanced Light-Water Reactors by O. B. Falls, Jr., and F. W. Kleimola; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 318 Data Base Construction for a Computerized Radiological Risk Investigation System by L. M. Hively, J. E. Nyquist, J. L. Bledsoe, and A. L. Sjoreen, 326 Erratum to "Radiation Hormesis and Nuclear Safety," Vol. 29, No. 1; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 327 Operational Safety Experience and Passive Safety Testing at the Fast Flux Text Facility by Q. L. Baird, J. L. Rathbun, D. D. Stepnewski, R. L. Stover, and A. E. Waltar, 344 Backfilling of Independent Residual Heat Removal Systems in West Germany and Switzerland by G. Eckert and Y. Salomon, 353 Reactor Shutdown Experience Compiled by J. W. Cletcher, 356 Selected Safety-Related Events Compiled by G. A. Murphy, 363 Operating U.S. Power Reactors Compiled by E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 384 General Administrative Activities Compiled by E. G. Silver, 390 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides by D. S. Queener, 395 Status of Power-Reactor Projects Undergoing Licensing Review Compiled by E. G. Silver, 400 Proposed Rule Changes as of Mar. 31,1988; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 283 International ENS/ANS Conference on Thermal Reactor Safety "NUCSAFE 88", 317 Northwestern University Short Course on Radiation Safety, 407 Second International Seminar on Small- and Medium-Sized Nuclear Reactors, 407 International Workshop on New Developments in Occupational Dose Control and ALARA Implementation at Nuclear Power Plants and Similar Facilities, 408 Fourth International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics (NURETH-4), 404 The Authors.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Meteoric 10Be Flux Calibration Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado, USA

This data package contains tabular and geospatial data used to quantify and model meteoric beryllium-10 fluxes in the East River watershed, Colorado, USA. The tabular component includes calibration-site data from five glacial moraine sites and includes environmental variables used to evaluate spatial controls on meteoric 10Be delivery, including elevation, mean annual precipitation (MAP), mean snow depth, and mean snow water equivalent (SWE). These site-level data were used to compare observed fluxes with environmental gradients across the watershed and to evaluate the effects of erosion correction on flux estimates. The package also includes supporting slope and curvature values used to assess topographic inputs to the erosion analysis. A second component of the data package contains updated manuscript tables and regression outputs used to summarize the relationships between meteoric 10Be flux and environmental predictors. These tables include meteoric 10Be sample information and AMS results, site-level environmental values, site-level meteoric 10Be inventory and flux values, watershed-averaged predicted fluxes, soil bulk density measurements, fine-fraction values, soil pH measurements, and regression statistics including slope, intercept, coefficient of determination, and p-value. The regression products include both standard linear regressions and regressions in which the intercept is constrained to pass through zero, and they support the analyses presented in the companion manuscript. Together, these tabular files provide the numerical basis for the manuscript tables and the regression-based interpretation of meteoric 10Be flux variability in a snow-dominated mountain watershed. The geospatial component of the package consists of GeoTIFF raster files used to generate the map products presented in Figures 2 and 6 of the companion manuscript. These rasters represent watershed-scale spatial layers for environmental variables and regression-based predictions of meteoric 10Be flux. This dataset contains comma-separated values files (.csv), Microsoft Excel files (.xlsx), GeoTIFF raster files (.tif), and upporting metadata files, including CSV data dictionaries and readme text files (.csv, .txt). The tabular files can be opened with standard spreadsheet software, and the raster files can be viewed and analyzed in GIS software such as ArcGIS Pro or QGIS. Together, these files document the numerical and spatial datasets used to calibrate and predict meteoric 10Be delivery in the East River watershed.

East River↗
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 OSTI2026

CHESS 2025: Leaf Area Index (LAI) for meadow, shrub, tree, and understory vegetation

This dataset contains Leaf Area Index (LAI) measurements made as part of the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) during June and July of 2025. Data were collected in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, across three study domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). Field observations of LAI were collected within 72 hours of airborne data collection by the National Ecological Observatory Network’s Aerial Observation Platform (NEON AOP). The NEON AOP collected waveform LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and imaging spectrometer data in 426 spectral bands from the visible to shortwave infrared. LAI measurements were collected using the LICOR LAI-2200C Plant Canopy Analyzer following protocols outlined in the instrument manual (LI-COR 2019). Sampling targeted four distinct vegetation types: meadows, shrubs, trees, and aspen forest understory. We have archived data separately by site type because different field methods were used for each. At meadow sites, measurements were made at the four corners of 1m x 1m plots, with the instrument moving inward toward the center of the plot. At shrub sites, we measured the canopies of individual shrubs. At tree sites, we made measurements within a 10m x 10m subplot centered around a focal tree, with 30 observations taken on a regular grid. At aspen understory sites, we measured overstory trees following the tree protocol and understory herbaceous vegetation following the meadow protocol. All measurements included above-canopy (A) and below-canopy (B) readings, with specific protocols for scattering correction measurements in direct-sun conditions. Data were processed using the R package `rlai` (Worsham 2025). This package includes functions to calculate LAI, gap fraction, apparent clumping factor (Ω), scattering correction, and other canopy metrics. Package contents: Full file descriptions appear in ‘flmd.csv’. Files named according to the convention ‘lai_*_summary_data_cleaned.csv’ contain summary values of LAI, apparent clumping factor (Ωapp), and scattering correction factors for each site. These are the analysis-ready products that most data users will work with. Files named ‘lai_*_metadata_cleaned.csv’ contain additional site-level observations made during field collection. We have also archived intermediate and supplementary data for users who wish to check our processing approach or apply alternative methods. ‘raw_lai_2200C.zip’ contains the raw files as read from the LI-COR instrument, with no processing applied, in TXT format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type, which are further subdivided by sampling area. Filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘intermediate_results.zip’ contains detailed output from the processing routines, in JSON format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘scattering_correction_logs.zip’ contains logfiles from the implementation of Kobayashi et al.'s (2013) scattering correction algorithm. The logfiles report values of several parameters at each iteration of the algorithm, as the model converges toward a stable solution. They are intended for users who want to verify scattering correction performance. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘spot_checks.csv’ reports LAI and other values for a small number of files processed with LI-COR FV2200 software (LI-COR 2013) using the same control parameters as in our R-based approach. Additional metadata are provided in a data dictionary describing column names and definitions (dd.csv), and in a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv). All zip files can be expanded with common archive utilities. TXT, CSV, and JSON files can be ingested into R or Python computing environments or read in common text editor utilities. Geospatial information: Geospatial data for mapping measurement site locations are in the files CHESS_polygons_lai_UTM.geojson, CHESS_polygons_shrub_UTM.geojson, and CHESS_polygons_meadow_UTM.geojson in the companion geospatial package for the 2025 CHESS campaign, ‘CHESS 2025: Location data for field observations and sampling’ (Henderson et al., 2026). CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. Funding Acknowledgement: Field and remote-sensing data acquisition was performed under a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC24K1005). This work was also 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. * Todorov and Worsham are co–first authors.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2025

Model Scripts for "Old-Aged Groundwater Contributes to Mountain Hillslope Hydrologic Dynamics"

The partitioning of water inputs between deep and shallow groundwater flow paths is a fundamental processes, yet is challenging to observe. Numerical models provide a valuable tool to further develop insights on these groundwater mixing processes. This repository contains scripts to run the ParFlow-CLM and EcoSLIM integrated hydrologic models along the Pumphouse Hillslope in the East River Watershed and associated python scripts to process model outputs. Files includes input decks for the associated models, python scripts, and text and css files to support the model runs and processing. The 2-D hillslope model simulates from 2000 to 2021 using transient forcing conditions from the publicly available NLDAS-2 dataset. We develop an ensemble of models with variable hydrogeologic and soil parameters. Model outputs from the ensemble of runs are compared to to water level observations at the PLM1 and PLM6 wells published at (https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1866836) and groundwater mean ages published at (https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1960042. The model results are used to evaluate hillslope water mass-balance transience and mixing dynamics between groundwater flow paths with young (<10 year) and old (>10 year) ages.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Field and Model Data Associated with the Manuscript “Drivers of Streamflow Intermittency in Humid Regions: 2. Evaluating Controls on Flow Persistence in an Urbanized Catchment”

This package contains field data, modeling files, and scripts supporting the investigation of the drivers of streamflow intermittency in an urbanized catchment. It includes the field data collected from electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) surveys, distributed temperature sensing (DTS), continuous self-potential (SP) monitoring, groundwater and stilling well. In addition, it contains the data and results of the coupled water- and electrical-flow model developed using the COMSOL Multiphysics and Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), as well as software files and Jupyter notebooks used to process the data and generate figures in the manuscript submitted for peer review. The data archive is organized in the following directories: 1) Climate Includes hourly precipitation and daily evapotranspiration time series (2024 – 2025) provided as CSV files, alongside a text file detailing dataset units. 2) Coupled_model Field_Application subfolder contains the ATS XML input scripts, data files, output data for the SP site. It also contains the Jupyter notebook (Plot_final_calib.ipynb) to visualize the results of the modeled SP, stream-groundwater exchange and moisture content. The flow model simulation is executed using the ATS XML scripts and the included Python script (generate_data_set.py) to convert ATS output to COMSOL-ready input. COMSOL Multiphysics template (.m can only be used with COMSOL with MATLAB) is executed using the ATS output data to simulate the potential field. 3) Discharge Includes the electrical conductivity (EC) time series (provided as CSV files) from salt slug injections. It also includes the Jupyter notebook (Discharge_process.ipynyb) used to estimate discharge. All discharge measurements collated into rating_curve_processed.csv 4) DTS Contains collated DTS data including raw Stokes and anti-Stokes measurement (provided as .h5 file). It also includes DTS processing.ipynb, a Jupyter notebook for calibrating the DTS data using dts_calibration Python package. cooler_calibration.csv is the DTS calibration CSV used in the calibration sequence. 5) ERT Contains raw resistivity data (provided as CSV files), spatial location of each of the electrodes (provided as CSV files), and files used for the resistivity inversion. 6) Slug_test Includes the slug test data at all the groundwater wells provided as CSV files, as well as the Jupyter notebook (Slug_test.ipynb) for calculating hydraulic conductivity. 7) SP Contains the SP data collected in field at the SP sites (provided as CSV files). 8) Well_data Contains two subfolders: 1) Raw, which provides unprocessed pressure, electrical conductivity and temperature timeseries downloaded from the loggers in all the groundwater and stilling wells, and 2) Processed, which contains sorted, QA/QC timeseries data for each well. The data archive also contains data_process.ipynb, a Jupyter notebook used for field data analysis and generating figures (plotting well, SP, climate, and discharge data, as well as calculating head gradient at sites with nested groundwater wells). Note: Code files (.ipynb, .py, .xml) can be opened in any standard code editor, .exo file can be viewed using Paraview, .h5 files can be opened using HDFView software and h5py Python package, and .resipy file can be opened with the open-source ResIPy software.

ATS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Commissioning of the Mu2e tracker DAQ, planning for the Vertical Slice Test and pre-pattern recognition studies

The primary objective of the Mu2e experiment at Fermilab is to search for the neutrino-less coherent $\mu \rightarrow e$ conversion in the field of an aluminum nucleus ($\mu^- \text{Al} \rightarrow e^- \text{Al}$). The signature of this process is a monochromatic Conversion Electron (CE) with an energy of approximately 104.97 MeV \cite{bartoszek2015mu2e}. Within the Standard Model (SM), the branching ratio for this process, including neutrino masses and oscillation, is expected to be less than $\mathcal{O}(10^{-50})$. This value is far beyond current experimental capabilities. However, models of physics beyond the SM predict much higher relative rates, approaching an observable level. The SINDRUM II experiment set an upper limit on muon conversion at $7 \times 10^{-13}$ (90\% CL) on Au target \cite{SINDRUMII:2006dvw}, and the Mu2e collaboration aims to improve this limit by four orders of magnitude. Observing this process would provide a clear evidence of physics beyond the Standard Model. A brief discussion of the theoretical and experimental aspects is provided in Chapter \ref{intr}. Mu2e adopts a sophisticated experimental setup to achieve its goals, further described in Chapter \ref{mu2echapter}. The central part of the Mu2e detector is the tracker, that consists of 18 tracking stations. The tracker must provide excellent momentum resolution, approximately 1 MeV/c, to distinguish the monochromatic CE signal from the background. To minimize the energy losses, a straw tube tracker will be used \cite{bobbb}. Chapter \ref{chaptertrk} provides an overview of the straw tracker design and its working principles. This Thesis presents a comprehensive study of the Mu2e tracker, covering complementary aspects from initial commissioning to optimization and first steps of the calibration processes. My work at Fermilab has been focused on the complete Data Acquisition (DAQ) testing from both hardware and software perspectives. I was involved in the commissioning of the Mu2e DAQ system and the Vertical Slice Test (VST) of the tracker. The VST encompasses the entire testing chain, from the straws to the readout, and to processed data on disk. I was also focused on the offline analysis, especially on pre-pattern recognition studies, to explore the best methods for identifying $\delta$-electrons during the data taking. Chapter \ref{commissioning} details the commissioning of the tracker DAQ system, emphasizing the importance of understanding of the readout process before the data acquisition. This includes validating the readout logic and firmware through Monte Carlo simulations to confirm functionality and buffering, monitoring the quality of the data from the tracker preamplifiers and front-end electronics, and assessing overall DAQ performance to ensure reliability during future calibration and data-taking. Chapter \ref{planning} discusses the initial steps towards the tracker calibration. The ultimate goal is to perform a time calibration of the first assembled station of the tracker using cosmic muons, aiming for a longitudinal hit position resolution better than 4 cm. This involves determining the signal propagation times and channel-to-channel delays. I performed a Monte Carlo study to determine the impact of the station orientation on the quality of the calibration, in particular on the cosmic track reconstruction, focusing on potential biases that could arise. These studies provide essential insights into the operation, optimization, and calibration of the Mu2e tracker system. Given the high data volume expected during Mu2e operations, estimated at approximately 7 PBytes per year, optimizing memory usage and minimizing CPU consumption are critical. A significant challenge lies in effectively flagging $\delta$-electron hits, which are the primary source of hits in the tracker, without compromising the efficiency of CE hit detection and track reconstruction. A detailed study of pre-pattern recognition and a thorough comparison of two $\delta$-electron flagging algorithms is provided in Chapter \ref{delta}. In Chapter \ref{conclusions}, the findings are concisely summarized, offering a comprehensive synthesis of the research and emphasizing the key insights derived from this study.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Hybrid Quantum–Classical Graph Transformers for Efficient Sentiment Analysis

Quantum Machine Learning (QML) offers a promising paradigm that leverages quantum computing principles to develop efficient and expressive models for learning from complex and structured data. Recent advances in natural language processing (NLP) and artificial intelligence (AI) have demonstrated capabilities in understanding, generating, and reasoning over linguistic and multimodal information. In this work, we present the Quantum Graph Transformer (QGT), a hybrid quantum–classical architecture that extends graph transformer capabilities through quantum self-attention. The QGT models variable-length sentences as token graphs, where both the embedding encoding and the self-attention mechanisms are implemented using parameterized quantum circuits (PQCs), enabling efficient contextual learning with significantly fewer trainable parameters. We train QGT using both fully connected and 𝑘 -nearest-neighbor graph structures and evaluate it on five benchmark sentiment-classification datasets. Experimental results show that QGT consistently achieves higher or comparable accuracy to existing quantum NLP models and outperforms a Classical Graph Transformer (CGT) baseline with identical architecture, achieving 29.4 × fewer parameters while requiring 3–5 × fewer samples to reach comparable performance. These findings highlight the potential of graph-based quantum models as scalable and data-efficient architectures for natural language understanding.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2025

AI Model Benchmarking for Nonproliferation Applications: Steel Thread Benchmarking Task Force Technical Report (Rev. 2)

Steel Thread is a NA-22 venture that seeks to build trustworthy, reliable AI models that can be used in a wide variety of nonproliferation tasks. A key aspect of building these models is developing appropriate benchmarks and evaluation methods, which will enable the venture to identify and adapt models to provide the most value in the nonproliferation domain. Benchmarks must be relevant to key tasks in this domain, such as question answering, information retrieval, document summarization and classification, consensus analysis, and image and data analysis. This report 1) provides an overview of benchmark design, evaluation, and challenges; 2) reviews a variety of open benchmarks, with a focus on language models and tasks; and 3) identifies benchmarks that are most relevant to Steel Thread. This report is intended to serve as a basis for further efforts to classify and evaluate benchmarks and their correlation with success on nonproliferation-specific tasks. The Steel Thread venture has defined benchmarks to be a particular combination of a dataset (or datasets) and a metric (or metrics) conceptualized as representing one or more specific tasks or sets of abilities for a specific modality. It is adopted by a research community as a shared framework for comparing methods.1 It includes 1) Data: Labeled (a designated subset not used for training, which could be all the data), 2) Metric: A way to quantify performance, 3) Task/Ability: What the benchmark is testing, 4) Protocol: A structured and repeatable evaluation process, 5) Baseline/Reference Model: For comparison; could be statistical, rule-based, SME-derived, or another model, and 6) Maintenance Plan: to update with new information over time; important for long-term utility. For further clarity, the definition includes what a benchmark, in this context, is not. It is not a corpus of training data, specific to a model (it is intended to apply to a range of models), a universal evaluation of performance, a guarantee that the ‘top’ model on the leaderboard will be the best fit for every specific use case, an all-encompassing proof of a model’s universal quality, nor is it a one-size-fits-all measure of success. It does not cover every real-world constraint (like operational, ethical, or cost considerations), a systems integration test, or a unit test. This definition was inspired by and resulted from discussions within the Steel Thread Benchmarking Task Force. This group was formed to define what we would mean as a benchmark within Steel Thread but persisted as the need to develop a thorough understanding of the large and expanding existing benchmarking space. This technical report is a result of the group’s divide and conquer approach to exploring this space. The release of benchmarks might not be progressing as quickly as model development, but it is moving very fast, as many benchmarks quickly become saturated, when state-of-the-art models score so close to the benchmark’s ceiling that their results are virtually indistinguishable. At that point, the test no longer differentiates between new systems, so researchers usually stop reporting scores as the benchmark no longer informs about improvements from the next generation of models. In the OpenAI announcement of GPT-5, they reported results on six flagship public benchmarks (AIME 2025, SWE-bench Verified, Aider Polyglot, MMMU, HealthBench Hard, GPQA) but the full system-card covers roughly thirty-five separate evaluations, comprising hundreds of test task items in total. There have been some efforts to summarize benchmarks in specific fields, like for text-to-image generation, but these surveys have had a narrow methodology scope. Therefore, a comprehensive survey of all benchmarks or even all benchmarks that could be relevant to Steel Thread is outside of the scope of this report. We chose some specific benchmarks to investigate in detail.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Field and Model Data Associated with the Manuscript “Drivers of Streamflow Intermittency in Humid Regions: 1. Evaluating Above- and Below-ground Controls of Flow Persistence in a Forested Catchment”

This package contains field data, modeling files, and scripts supporting the investigation of the drivers of streamflow intermittency in a forested catchment. It includes the field data collected from electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) surveys, ground penetrating radar (GPR), continuous self-potential (SP) monitoring, electromagnetic (EM) imaging, groundwater and stilling well. In addition, it contains the data and results of the coupled water- and electrical-flow model developed using the COMSOL Multiphysics and Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), as well as software files and Jupyter notebooks used to process the data and generate figures in the manuscript submitted for peer review. The data archive is organized in the following directories: 1) Climate Includes hourly precipitation and daily evapotranspiration time series (2024 – 2025) provided as CSV files, alongside a text file detailing dataset units. 2) Coupled_model Contains two subfolders: Synthetic and Field_Application subfolder. Synthetic subfolder contains the ATS XML input script (can be opened using any code editor) for the four synthetic hydrological cases tested (Connected and gaining, Connected and losing, Disconnected and losing, and dry stream). It also includes other experimental cases to test the influence of precipitation and concentration gradient. For each synthetic case, the flow model simulation is executed using the ATS XML scripts and the included Python script (generate_data_set.py) to convert ATS output to COMSOL-ready input. COMSOL Multiphysics template (.mph can be opened with the commercial software COMSOL and requires a license) is executed using the ATS output data to simulate the potential field. It also includes the Synthetic_model_plot.ipynb (can be opened using any code editor) to visualize the SP result and generate manuscript figures. The data subfolder contains mesh files to run both the ATS (.exo and .stl files can be viewed using Paraview; .h5 files can be opened using HDFView software and h5py Python package) and COMSOL models. Field_Application subfolder contains two subfolders: ES_MDA_inversion and Final_Model. ES_MDA_inversion contains the Python script (.py can be opened using any code editor) and SP observation data used to run the Ensemble Smoother with Multiple Data Assimilation (ES-MDA) inversion sequence to get the optimal model parameters. The Final_model subfolder contains the ATS XML input scripts, data files, output data for the two SP sites. The same workflow steps outlined for the Synthetic subfolder apply here. It also contains the Jupyter notebook (Plot_final_calib.ipynb) to visualize the results of the modeled SP, stream-groundwater exchange and moisture content. 3) Discharge Includes the electrical conductivity (EC) time series (provided as CSV files) from salt slug injections. It also includes the Jupyter notebook (Discharge_process.ipynyb) used to estimate discharge. All discharge measurements collated into rating_curve_processed.csv 4) EM Contains the CSV file of the EM data from the DUALEM-42, including spatial coordinates (x, y, z), apparent conductivity, and in-phase measurements at 2 m coil separations for horizontal coplanar (HCP) and perpendicular (PRP) geometries. 5) ERT Contains raw resistivity data (provided as CSV files), spatial location of each of the electrodes (provided as CSV files), and files used for the resistivity inversion (.resipy can be opened with the open-source ResIPy software). 6) GPR Includes GPR field datasets collected at 100 MHz and 250 MHz antenna frequencies, along with the processing/interpretation project file (GPR_process.gpz can be viewed using EKKO_Project 6, a commercial software by Sensors & Software that requires a license). 7) Slug_test Includes the slug test data at all the groundwater wells provided as CSV files, as well as the Jupyter notebook (Slug_test.ipynb) for calculating hydraulic conductivity. 8) SP Contains the SP data collected in field at the two SP sites (one in the perennial reach and the other in the intermittent reach), provided as DAT files. 9) Well_data Contains two subfolders: 1) Raw, which provides unprocessed pressure, electrical conductivity and temperature timeseries downloaded from the loggers in all the groundwater and stilling wells, and 2) Processed, which contains sorted, QA/QC timeseries data for each well. The data archive also contains data_process.ipynb, a Jupyter notebook used for field data analysis and generating figures (plotting well, SP, climate, and discharge data, as well as calculating head gradient at sites with nested groundwater wells). It also includes DTW.ipynb, a Jupyter notebook containing the code for the dynamic time warping (DTW) with sliding window to evaluate SP signal synchronicity.

ATS↗
DOE OSTI2025

TRAILS Output Files

Overview This data repository contains ZIP files that store compressed versions of the output of running the WaterPaths utility planning and management tool in the DU Re-Evaluation mode (to download the tool, please see this GitHub repository). The tool was used to simulate the six-utility North Carolina Research Triangle problem. Details on the contents of each ZIP file can be seen below. Data details Temporal range: Weekly data for 2,344 weeks from 2015 to 2060 (45 years). Spatial range: Six water utilities in the North Carolina Research Triangle region (0: Chapel Hil/OWASA, 1: Durham, 2: Cary, 3: Raleigh, 4: Pittsboro, and 5: Chatham) File types: CSV and OUT Different solutions available The solution numbers correspond to the different pathway strategies (henceforth referred to as "solutions") discussed in paper's main and supporting text (abstract and link to the paper here). They are as follows: Sol92: The Durham-focused pathway strategy Sol132: The Raleigh-focused pathway strategy Sol140: The regionally-robust pathway strategy Objectives files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Objectives_RDMXX_solsXX_to_XX.csv files. Each CSV file will consist of a row representing all the objective values for that specific solution, while every six columns represents the reliability, restriction frequency, infrastructure net present value ($ mil), peak financial cost, worst-case cost, and unit cost ($ per MG; in that order) for each of the six utilities. There will be 1,000 such files, denoting the performance of the six utilities across the 1,000 deeply uncertain states of the world (DU SOWs). Pathway files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Pathways_sXX_RDMXX.out file. Each OUT corresponds to the set of infrastructure being triggered in a specific DU SOW, and each file will have the name file will consist of four tab-delimited columns that are described as follows: Realization: The realization in which an infrastructure options being triggered utility: The utility currently triggering infrastructure week: The week in which a specific infrastructure option is being triggered infra.: The infrastructure option being triggered If the OUT file contains only the header line, no infrastructure was triggered for that specific DU SOW. Policies files These files can be obtained by unzipping Policies.zip. Each of the 1,000 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly water use restriction policies for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: 0rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 0 (values between 0 and 1) 1rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 1 (values between 0 and 1) 2rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 2 (values between 0 and 1) 3rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 3 (values between 0 and 1) 4rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 4 (values between 0 and 1) 5rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 5 (values between 0 and 1) 0transf: transfer volume for utility 0 (in MGD) 1transf: transfer volume for utility 1 (in MGD) 2transf: transfer volume for utility 2 (in MGD) 3transf: transfer volume for utility 3 (in MGD) 4transf: transfer volume for utility 4 (in MGD) 5transf: transfer volume for utility 5 (in MGD) Water Sources files These files can be obtained by unzipping WaterSources_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each water source for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xvolume: available water volume from source X (in MGD) Xs_area: surface area of source X (in ACF) Xdemand: demand drawn from a water source from source X (in MGD) Xup_spill: upstream spillage from source X (in MGD) Xww_inflow: wastewater inflow from source X (in MGD) Xcatch_inflow: upstream catchment inflow to source X (in MGD) Xevap: evaporation multiplier for source X (values between 0 and 1) Xds_spill: downstream spillage from source X (in MGD) X_Y_alloc_cap: the allocated capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) X_Y_alloc_dem: the allocated demand from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Xtrmt_alloc_Y: the allocated treatment capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Utilities files These files can be obtained by unzipping Utilities_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each utility for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xcapacity: total storage capacity of utility X (in MG) Xnet_inf: : net inflow for all storage infrastructure for utility X (in MGD) Xst_rof: short term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_stor_rof: short-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_trmt_rof: short-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_rof: long-term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_stor_rof: long-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_trmt_rof: long-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xrest_demand: restricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunrest_demand: unrestricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunfulf_demand: unfulfilled demand for utility X (in MGD) Xwastewater: wastewater return for utility X (in MGD) Xtreat_capacity: total treatment capacity for utility X (in MG) Xcont_fund: reserve (contingency) fund balance for utility X Xins_pout: insurance payout for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xins_price: insurance price for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xinfra_npv: infrastructure net present value for utility ($mil) Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xdebt_serv: debt service for utility X (usually once per year if the infrastructure is triggered; % annual volumetric revenue) Xstor_vol: total stored volume (in MGD) Xobs_ann_dem: observed annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xproj_dem: projected annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xpv_debt_serv: present value of debt service payments for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xgross_rev: gross revenue for utility X ($mil) 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.

Artificial Intelligence↗
DOE OSTI2025

A precise measurement of the jet energy scale derived from single-particle measurements and in situ techniques in proton–proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

The jet energy calibration and its uncertainties are derived from measurements of the calorimeter response to single particles in both data and Monte Carlo simulation using proton–proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected with the ATLAS detector during Run 2 at the Large Hadron Collider. The jet calibration uncertainty for anti-$k_T$ jets with a jet radius parameter of R$_\textrm{jet} = 0.4$ and in the central jet rapidity region is about 2.5% for transverse momenta ($p_{\text {T}}$) of 20 $\text {GeV}$ , about 0.5% for $p_{\text {T}} = 300$ GeV and 0.7% for $p_{\text {T}} = 4$ TeV . Excellent agreement is found with earlier determinations obtained from -balance based in situ methods ($Z/\gamma$ +jets). The combination of these two independent methods results in the most precise jet energy measurement achieved so far with the ATLAS detector with a relative uncertainty of 0.3% at $p_\textrm{T} = 300$ GeV and 0.6% at 4 TeV. The jet energy calibration is also derived with the single-particle calorimeter response measurements separately for quark- and gluon-induced jets and furthermore for jets with R jet varying from 0.2 to 1.0 retaining the correlations between these measurements. Differences between inclusive jets and jets from boosted top-quark decays, with and without grooming the soft jet constituents, are also studied.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗