Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “pair distribution function”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 199 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Nonresonant central exclusive production of charged-hadron pairs in proton-proton collisions at s = 13 TeV

The central exclusive production of charged-hadron pairs in p p collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV is examined, based on data collected in a special high- β * run of the LHC. The nonresonant continuum processes are studied with the invariant mass of the centrally produced two-pion system in the resonance-free region, m π + π − < 0.7 or m π + π − > 1.8 GeV . Differential cross sections as functions of the azimuthal angle between the surviving protons, squared exchanged four-momenta, and m π + π − are measured in a wide region of scattered proton transverse momenta, between 0.2 and 0.8 GeV, and for pion rapidities | y | < 2 . A rich structure of interactions related to double-pomeron exchange is observed. A parabolic minimum in the distribution of the two-proton azimuthal angle is observed for the first time. It can be interpreted as an effect of additional pomeron exchanges between the protons from the interference between the bare and the rescattered amplitudes. After model tuning, various physical quantities are determined that are related to the pomeron cross section, proton-pomeron and meson-pomeron form factors, pomeron trajectory and intercept, and coefficients of diffractive eigenstates of the proton. © 2024 CERN, for the CMS and TOTEMs Collaboration 2024 CERN

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Measurement of t -channel production of single top quarks and antiquarks in pp collisions at 13 TeV using the full ATLAS Run 2 data sample

The production of single top quarks and top antiquarks via the t-channel exchange of a virtual W boson is measured in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV at the LHC using 140 fb -1 of ATLAS data. The total cross-sections are determined to be σ(tq) = 137$^{+8}_{-8}$ pb and σ($\bar{t}q$) = 84$^{+6}_{-5}$ pb for top-quark and top-antiquark production, respectively. The combined cross-section is found to be σ(tq + $\bar{t}q$) = 221$^{+13}_{-13}$ pb and the cross-section ratio is R t = σ(tq) / σ($\bar{t}q$) = 1.636$^{+0.036}_{-0.034}$. The predictions at next-to-next-to-leading-order in quantum chromodynamics are in good agreement with these measurements. The predicted value of R t using different sets of parton distribution functions is compared with the measured value, demonstrating the potential to further constrain the functions when using this result in global fits. The measured cross-sections are interpreted in an effective field theory approach, setting limits at the 95% confidence level on the strength of a four-quark operator and an operator coupling the third quark generation to the Higgs boson doublet: -0.37 < C$^{3,1}_{Qq}$ /Λ 2 < 0.06 and -0.87 < C$^{3}_{ΦQ}$ / Λ 2 < 1.42. The constraint |V tb | > 0.95 at the 95% confdence level is derived from the measured value of σ(tq + $\bar{t}q$), assuming that the Wtb interaction is a left-handed weak coupling and that |V tb | $\gg$ |V td |, |V ts |. In a more general approach, pairs of CKM matrix elements involving top quarks are simultaneously constrained, leading to confdence contours in the corresponding two-dimensional parameter spaces.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Exclusive J / ψ , ψ ( 2 s ) , and e + e - pair production in Au + Au ultraperipheral collisions at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider

Measurements of exclusive J/ψ, ψ(2⁢s), and electron-positron (e + ⁢e - ) pair photoproduction in Au+Au ultraperipheral collisions are reported by the STAR experiment at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200GeV. Here, we report several first measurements at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, which are (i) J/ψ photoproduction with large momentum transfer up to 2.2⁢(GeV/c) 2 , (ii) coherent J/ψ photoproduction associated with neutron emissions from nuclear breakup, (iii) the rapidity dependence of incoherent J/ψ photoproduction, (iv) the ψ⁡(2⁢s) photoproduction cross section at midrapidity, and (v) e + ⁢e - pair photoproduction up to high invariant mass of 6GeV/c 2 . For measurement (ii), the coherent J/ψ total cross section of γ + Au → J/ψ + Au as a function of the center-of-mass energy W γN has been obtained without photon energy ambiguities. The data are quantitatively compared with the Monte Carlo models STARlight, Sartre, BeAGLE, and theoretical calculations of gluon saturation with color glass condensate, nuclear shadowing with leading twist approximation, quantum electrodynamics, and the next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD. At the photon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 25.0 GeV, the coherent and incoherent J/ψ cross sections of Au nuclei are found to be 71% ± 10% and 36% ± 7%, respectively, of that of free protons. These data provide an important experimental constraint for nuclear parton distribution functions and a unique opportunity to advance the understanding of the nuclear modification effect at the top RHIC energy.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Measurement of the jet mass in hadronic decays of boosted W bosons at 13 TeV and extraction of the W boson mass

The jet mass of W bosons decaying to a quark-antiquark pair is measured in W+jets events from proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The data used were collected by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb −1 . Hadronic decays of W bosons with high momenta produce strongly collimated decay products due to the large Lorentz boost, and are reconstructed as single large-radius jets. These jets have a characteristic substructure that is exploited to distinguish them from the large background of quark- and gluon-initiated jets. The jet mass is computed using the soft-drop algorithm, which suppresses soft wide-angle radiation that leads to a broadening of the jet mass distribution. For the first time, unfolded measurements are presented of the double-differential W+jets cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum and soft-drop mass. From these distributions, the W boson mass is obtained, with a value of 80.83 ± 0.55 GeV in a scheme with mass-dependent width, achieving the smallest uncertainty available today from an all-jets final state at a hadron collider.

hadron-hadron scattering↗
DOE OSTI2024

Measurement of beauty production via non-prompt charm hadrons in p–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV

The production cross sections of D 0 , D + , and Λ$^{+}_{c}$ hadrons originating from beauty-hadron decays (i.e. non-prompt) were measured for the first time at midrapidity in proton–lead (p–Pb) collisions at the center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. Nuclear modification factors (R pPb ) of non-prompt D 0 , D + , and Λ$^{+}_{c}$ are calculated as a function of the transverse momentum (p T ) to investigate the modification of the momentum spectra measured in p–Pb collisions with respect to those measured in proton–proton (pp) collisions at the same energy. The R pPb measurements are compatible with unity and with the measurements in the prompt charm sector, and do not show a significant p T dependence. The p T -integrated cross sections and p T -integrated R pPb of non-prompt D 0 and D + mesons are also computed by extrapolating the visible cross sections down to p T = 0. The non-prompt D-meson R pPb integrated over p T is compatible with unity and with model calculations implementing modification of the parton distribution functions of nucleons bound in nuclei with respect to free nucleons. The non-prompt Λ$^{+}_{c}$/D 0 and D + /D 0 production ratios are computed to investigate hadronisation mechanisms of beauty quarks into mesons and baryons. The measured ratios as a function of p T display a similar trend to that measured for charm hadrons in the same collision system.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $ \textrm{b}\overline{\textrm{b}}{\textrm{W}}^{+}{\textrm{W}}^{-} $ decay mode in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 13 TeV

A search for Higgs boson pair (HH) production with one Higgs boson decaying to two bottom quarks and the other to two W bosons are presented. The search is done using proton-proton collisions data at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{−1}$ recorded by the CMS detector at the LHC from 2016 to 2018. The final states considered include at least one leptonically decaying W boson. No evidence for the presence of a signal is observed and corresponding upper limits on the HH production cross section are derived. The limit on the inclusive cross section of the nonresonant HH production, assuming that the distributions of kinematic observables are as expected in the standard model (SM), is observed (expected) to be 14 (18) times the value predicted by the SM, at 95% confidence level. The limits on the cross section are also presented as functions of various Higgs boson coupling modifiers, and anomalous Higgs boson coupling scenarios. In addition, limits are set on the resonant HH production via spin-0 and spin-2 resonances within the mass range 250–900 GeV.[graphic not available: see fulltext]

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Across the Scales of the Nucleus: Understanding Short Range Correlations from Medium Modification to Probe Independence

The atomic nucleus presents an intricate system due to the non-linear forces described by Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) that govern its structure. The range of scales involved is remarkable; the most massive nuclei weigh approximately five orders of magnitude more than the quarks that compose them. The nucleus can be analyzed at various levels, from quarks to hadrons to the nucleus as a whole. Short-Range Correlations (SRCs) within the nucleus play a significant role that spans these diverse scales. At the most fundamental level, SRCs influence the interaction between nucleons. The nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction, arising from QCD, is crucial in determining nuclear properties. SRCs serve as valuable probes for measuring this NN interaction, as the nucleons within SRCs become effectively decoupled from the rest of the nucleus. Multiple experimental techniques, including electron scattering, have been employed to investigate the NN interaction through SRCs. However, our first project demonstrates that inclusive measurements alone are inadequate to constrain this interaction fully. Moving to the scale of the nucleus, SRCs contribute to the high-momentum tail of the nuclear spectral function. While the low-momentum region is characterized by nucleons exhibiting bulk properties, nucleons begin to pair into SRCs at higher momenta. Our research aims to bridge the understanding between the mean-field portion of the nucleus and its high-momentum SRC components. Additionally, SRCs affect the quark structure of protons, as evidenced by the EMC effect, which indicates that quarks behave differently when protons are embedded within a nucleus—an effect referred to as medium modification. This thesis explores the correlation between SRCs and medium modification across various experimental setups. Finally, we seek to establish an interpretation of the nuclear ground state. Accomplishing this requires demonstrating that our SRC observables are independent of the probe’s scale and scheme. The concluding project of this thesis illustrates how we utilize triple coincidence quasi-elastic scattering across a range of (Q2) values to develop a model-dependent framework for understanding SRC distributions within the nucleus’s ground-state wavefunction.

Denniston, A. W. Denniston [University of Tel Aviv↗
DOE OSTI2025

eDNAjoint: An R package for interpreting paired or semi‐paired environmental DNA and traditional survey data in a Bayesian framework

Abstract Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling is increasingly used in surveys of species distribution as a potentially sensitive and efficient monitoring method. Yet access to modelling tools designed specifically for interpreting this new data type lags behind its ubiquity. While occupancy modelling software has dominated the analytical landscape for eDNA data analysis of single species, this type of model may not always be the most appropriate. The rate of eDNA detection often corresponds to species density, rather than just occupancy, and researchers often have access to observations from non‐genetic sampling methods at the same sites. To provide users access to a modelling framework designed to maximize the use of all available data, we developed an R package, eDNAjoint . The package provides an easy‐to‐use interface for fitting a ‘joint’ model that integrates data from paired or semi‐paired eDNA and traditional surveys in a Bayesian framework. The model can be used to estimate parameters like the probability of a false positive eDNA detection and mean catch rate at a site, and the package allows access to multiple model variations and Bayesian prior customization. Additional functionality can be used for model selection, summarising posteriors and comparing the relative sensitivities of the two survey methods. We demonstrate the use of eDNAjoint by fitting a variation of the model with site‐level covariates that scale the sensitivity of eDNA sampling relative to traditional sampling. The example workflow uses binary eDNA and seine count data for the endangered tidewater goby ( Eucyclogobius newberryi ) from a study by Schmelzle and Kinziger (2016). This use case includes a prior sensitivity analysis and an evaluation of the relationship between detection rates and environmental variables. eDNAjoint has the potential to greatly increase the range of users who will be able to rigorously analyse eDNA and traditional survey data in a Bayesian framework, understand if and how eDNA can improve monitoring practices, and gain confidence in the interpretability of eDNA data.

Keller, Abigail G. [Department of Environment Scie↗
DOE OSTI2025

Sizing and Location Selection of Medium‐Voltage Back‐to‐Back Converters for DER‐Dominated Distribution Systems

Medium‐voltage back‐to‐back (MVB2B) converters can connect two distribution systems and quantifiably transfer power between them. This function can enable the MVB2B converter to exchange distributed energy resource (DER)‐generated power between two systems and bring significant value to enhancing distribution system DER adoption. Our previous work analysed and demonstrated the value MVB2B converter can bring to DER integration. As continuous work, this paper presents a methodology that helps address the MVB2B converter sizing and location selection problem in distribution systems with high DER penetrations. The proposed methodology aims to address three critical problems for MVB2B converter implementation in the real world: (1) which distribution systems are better to be connected, (2) what converter size is appropriate for connecting the distribution systems, and (3) where the optimal connection points are in the systems for connecting the MVB2B converter. The proposed methodology has been demonstrated by case studies that include various scenarios involving distribution systems with different dominated load types and high photovoltaic penetrations. The results demonstrate that selecting the optimal converter size based on net revenue and time of return considerations leads to a balance between maximizing energy savings and minimizing financial payback periods. Furthermore, feeder pair selection based on load profile standard deviation effectively identifies systems that derive the greatest value from MVB2B integration. Finally, an optimized connection point selection approach using a voltage load sensitivity matrix ensures minimal system impact while facilitating efficient power exchange. These findings provide practical insights for the real‐world deployment of MVB2B converters to enhance DER hosting capacity and improve grid resilience.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Modification of Quark-Gluon Distributions in Nuclei by Correlated Nucleon Pairs

We extend the QCD Parton Model analysis using a factorized nuclear structure model incorporating individual nucleons and pairs of correlated nucleons. Our analysis of high-energy data from lepton deep-inelastic scattering, Drell-Yan, and W and Z boson production simultaneously extracts the universal effective distribution of quarks and gluons inside correlated nucleon pairs, and their nucleus-specific fractions. Such successful extraction of these universal distributions marks a significant advance in our understanding of nuclear structure properties connecting nucleon- and parton-level quantities. Published by the American Physical Society 2024

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Generation of random geological models using multi-randomization for machine learning

Generating high-fidelity geological models is essential for advancing machine learning (ML) methods in automated seismic interpretation. For instance, seismic images paired with corresponding fault labels are foundational for ML-based fault detection from seismic migration sections. While several open-access datasets of random geological models exist, open-source tools specifically designed to produce large volumes of such models for ML applications remain scarce. To address this gap, we present RGM (Random Geological Model), an open-source software package for efficiently generating 2D and 3D synthetic geological models tailored for ML workflows. RGM supports the creation of diverse model components, including medium property distributions (P-/S-wave velocities and density), seismic reflectivity images (i.e., synthetic migration sections), relative geological time, and discrete fault attributes such as probability, dip, strike, rake, and displacement. It also accommodates the creation of complex geological features such as salt bodies and unconformities. The model generation algorithm employs a multi-randomization strategy, yielding an effectively infinite-dimensional model space that encompasses a wide range of geological scenarios and associated seismic features. Furthermore, RGM incorporates a method to generate synthetic elastic migration images using analytical elastic reflection coefficients combined with frequency-dependent scaling. This functionality enables the creation of training datasets for ML models that leverage elastic seismic images. RGM is implemented in modern object-oriented Fortran, allowing users to flexibly control statistical parameters governing model variability. We demonstrate the capability, performance, and geological realism of the package through comprehensive 2D and 3D examples.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
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 OSTI2025

Accelerating Embedding Potential Optimization by Reconstructing the Pseudo-Valence Electron Density

Density functional embedding theory (DFET) enables use of electronic structure methods with higher accuracy than density functional theory in a local region, with applications thus far ranging from (photo/electro)catalysis to reactions in solution. DFET partitions a large collection of atoms into smaller groups that interact via a shared embedding (interaction) potential V emb , determined via functional optimization. The optimized effective potential (OEP) process used to optimize V emb is time-consuming and becomes a computational bottleneck due to sharp, oscillating features of V emb near nuclei. Here, similar to pseudopotential theory, by reconstructing electron densities used in the OEP process from smoother pseudo-valence-only (PVO) electron densities as proxies for total densities of the full system and subsystems, we can retain accuracy in the embedded electronic structure calculations while potentially reducing the overhead of V emb construction, within the projector augmented-wave (PAW) formalism. We explore three different chemical reactions as exemplars to test PVO–DFET, namely, H 2 dissociative adsorption on a Cu(111) surface, H 2 O adsorption on a Pt(111) surface, and aqueous [Ca 2+ –SO 4 2– ] ion-pair formation. The PVO approximation works well for all three systems with minimal loss of accuracy (∼10–70 meV error relative to the original exact-derivative (ED) approach) while accelerating V emb generation for the Cu and Pt systems respectively by 20× and 5×. Given proper numerical convergence parameters, the spatial distributions of differences between PVO- and ED-based V emb outside the core regions are small, explaining the exceptional agreement between the two approaches. Finally, we anticipate that this more efficient PVO–DFET approximation will be useful whenever computation of V emb is much more expensive than subsequent embedded high-level electron correlation calculations.

approximation↗
DOE OSTI2024

Enhancing Cloud Cybersecurity: Prescriptive Controls for Operational Technology

This whitepaper provides strategic insights and recommendations into security cloud-based solutions for electric utilities, encompassing operational technology (OT), virtual power plants (VPP), distributed energy resources (DERs), applications, networks, and data storage as they transition to and leverage cloud infrastructure through managed service providers (MSPs) and cloud service providers (CSPs). Principles derived from established frameworks serve as a foundation for best practices across cybersecurity projects and remove the constraints of settling on a single framework. For organizations that prefer not to integrate a specific framework altogether, elements of the proposed approach could be adopted or tailored to best fit defined requirements and expected functionalities. The Cirrus assessment, a utility cloud feasibility tool, and the roadmap it provides serve as a precursor to this paper, which seeks to be a valuable resource for defining next steps following cloud technology integration feasibility appraisal. With its comprehensive approach to adoption, the Cirrus framework offers strategic guidance on responsibly preparing for or deploying a utility cloud solution. The previously published whitepaper, “Use Case-Informed Framework for Utility Cloud Migration,” details the guiding strategy, research, and deployment of cloud solutions within electric and interconnected grid systems. Before implementing the controls suggested in this document, it is recommended that stakeholders complete Cirrus's cloud integration assessment and pair the results with their unique cybersecurity controls to form a comprehensive cloud-based utility cybersecurity plan. The Cirrus outcome will consider a series of future architectures for the grid before and after the energy transition and evaluate the arguments for and against cloud applications for each electric and interconnected grid layer. This document is a companion to the original whitepaper, "Use Case-Informed Framework for Utility Cloud Migration" to further identify and recommend security controls based on Cirrus’s cloud integration assessment output. The following whitepaper outlines the cybersecurity controls that secure cloud-service models pertinent to the electric sector using the predefined categories identify, protect, detect, and respond and recover. The objective is to outline prescriptive security controls based on the type of architecture and data stored in the cloud. The focus includes dissecting the shared responsibility model and elucidating what on-premises Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS) entail. A pivotal consideration in this context is allocating responsibility for foundational cybersecurity aspects—having used Cirrus for the cloud integration assessment. The ensuing controls detailed herein also represent a checklist of controls necessary for a secure cloud transition, equipping utilities with the knowledge to navigate this digital transformation with confidence and strategic foresight in a safe and responsible manner.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Precise measurement of the tt¯ production cross-section and lepton differential distributions in eμ dilepton events from s=13TeVpp collisions with the ATLAS detector

The inclusive top quark pair (tt¯$$t\bar{t}$$) cross-section σtt¯$$\sigma _{t\bar{t}}$$ has been measured in proton–proton collisions at s=13TeV$$\sqrt{s}=13\,\text {TeV}$$, using 140fb-1$$140\,{\text {fb}^{-1}} $$ of data collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. Using events with an opposite-charge eμ$$e\mu $$ pair and b-tagged jets, the cross-section is measured to be: σtt¯=829.3±1.3(stat)±8.0(syst)±7.3(lumi)±1.9(beam)pb,$$\begin{aligned} \sigma _{t\bar{t}} & = 829.3\pm 1.3\,\mathrm {(stat)}\ \pm 8.0\,\mathrm {(syst)}\ \pm 7.3\,\mathrm {(lumi)}\ \\ & \quad \pm 1.9\,\mathrm {(beam)}\,\textrm{pb}, \end{aligned}$$where the uncertainties reflect the limited size of the data sample, experimental and theoretical systematic effects, the integrated luminosity, and the proton beam energy, giving a total uncertainty of 1.3%. The result is used to determine the top quark pole mass via the dependence of the predicted cross-section on mtpole$${m_{t}^\textrm{pole}}$$, giving mtpole=172.8-1.7+1.5$${m_{t}^\textrm{pole}}=172.8^{+1.5}_{-1.7}$$ GeV$$\text {GeV}$$. The same event sample is used to measure absolute and normalised differential cross-sections for the tt¯→eμνν¯bb¯$$t\bar{t} \rightarrow e\mu u \bar{ u }b\bar{b} $$ process as a function of single-lepton and dilepton kinematic variables. Complementary measurements of eμbb¯$$e\mu b\bar{b} $$ production, treating both tt¯$$t\bar{t}$$ and Wt events as signal, are also provided. Both sets of differential cross-sections are compared to the predictions of various Monte Carlo event generators, demonstrating that the state-of-the-art generators Powheg MiNNLO and Powhegbb4l describe the data better than Powheghvq.

Aad, G↗
DOE OSTI2024

Helium-4 gravitational form factors: Exchange currents

We evaluate the leading exchange corrections to the helium-4 gravitational form factors (GFFs) to momenta of the order of the nucleon mass. We use both the K-harmonic method with simple pair nucleon potential, and a Jastrow trial function using the Argonne 𝑣 14 potential, to evaluate the helium-4 GFFs. The exchange current contributions include the pair interaction, plus the seagull and the pion exchange interactions, modulo the recoil corrections. To estimate the off-shellness of the pion nucleon coupling in this momenta range, we discuss the results using either the pseudoscalar (PS) or pseudovector (PV) pion-nucleon couplings. When the PV coupling is used, the pair diagram contribution is higher order in the nonrelativistic expansion. The results for the helium-4 A-GFF are comparable to those given by the impulse approximation, especially for the PS coupling using both the K-harmonic method and variational method. The exchange current contributions with the PS coupling for the charge form factor of helium-4, yield better agreement with the existing data over a broad range of momenta, especially when the Argonne 𝑣 14 potential including the D-wave admixture is used.

A ≤ 5↗