Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Haack, Jeffrey Robert

Publications and source records attributed to Haack, Jeffrey Robert.

5 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Comparison of Supervised and Un-Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms for Threat Detection and Scintillator Performance for Radiation Portal Monitoring

Following the events of September 11, 2001, international border crossing have been equipped with radiation portal monitors (RPMs) to identify illicit radioactive material. Polyvinyl toluene (PVT) scintillators are commonly used due to their low cost and reasonable maintainability, however they offer low spectral resolution. Despite the fact that over twenty years has transpired since this event, radioisotopes are still typically identified by hand-crafted classification algorithms, e.g., total counts or energy windowing, and exhibit relatively poor performance in detecting threats at the low false alarm rates required to support the stream of commerce. While some improvement to performance has been realized via the use of supervised machine learning, these classification algorithms typically utilize simulations in lieu of real data due to the sparsity of data for one or more classes. Accordingly, the performance of these algorithms is somewhat less than optimal when examining experiments or simulations with model mismatch. Consequently, in this work, we examine the application of a number of unsupervised machine learning, anomaly detection based algorithms, to circumvent the inverse crime when analyzing spectroscopy data for RPMs. We also compare anomaly detection results with those obtained via the use of supervised classification detection ML algorithms when model mismatch is introduced between the simulated threat items utilized for training/testing. Finally, we compared the performance of the PVT scintillators to those obtained with higher resolution detectors using both anomaly detection and supervised classification algorithms.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2022

GLUE Code: A framework handling communication and interfaces between scales

Many scientific applications are inherently multiscale in nature. Such complex physical phenomena often require simultaneous execution and coordination of simulations spanning multiple time and length scales. This is possible by combining expensive small-scale simulations (such as molecular dynamics simulations) with larger scale simulations (such continuum limit/hydro solvers) to allow for considerably larger systems using task and data parallelism. However, the granularity of the tasks can be very large and often leads to load imbalance. Traditionally, we use approximations to streamline the computation of the more costly interactions and this introduces trade-offs between simulation cost and accuracy. In recent years, the available computational power and the advances in machine learning have made computing these scale-bridging interactions and multiscale simulations more feasible. One driving application has been plasma modeling in inertial confinement fusion (ICF), which is fundamentally multiscale in nature. This requires deep understanding of how to extrapolate microscopic information into macroscopically relevant scales. For example, in ICF one needs an accurate understanding of the connection between experimental observables and the underlying microphysics. The properties of the larger scales are often affected by the microscale behavior incorporated usually into the equations of state and ionic and electronic transport coefficients (Liboff, 1959; Rinderknecht et al., 2014; Rosenberg et al., 2015; Ross et al., 2017). Instead of incorporating this information using reliable molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, one often needs to use theoretical models, due to the inability of MD to reach engineering scales (Glosli et al., 2007; Marinak et al., 1998). One approach to resolve this issue is by coupling two MD simulations of different scales via force interpolation, e.g., the AdResS method (Krekeler et al., 2018; Nagarajan et al., 2013). Another approach, which we will pursue in the scope of this work, is by enabling scale bridging between MD simulations and meso/macro-scale models through the development and support of application programming interfaces that these different applications can interact through.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗