Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “structured text”

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.

211 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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 OSTI2026

Programmable Phase Selection between Altermagnetic and Noncentrosymmetric Polymorphs of MnTe on InP via Molecular Beam Epitaxy

This dataset contains DFT input and output files supporting the theoretical modeling in the associated publication (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2026, 18, 15654-15664). The calculations model the interfacial energetics of two MnTe polymorphs — NiAs-MnTe (hexagonal, alpha phase) and ZnS-MnTe (cubic, gamma phase) — on InP(111) substrates with two surface terminations: In-terminated InP(111)A and P-terminated InP(111)B. This gives four interface configurations: NiAs on In-terminated (experimentally observed), NiAs on P-terminated (computed for comparison), ZnS on In-terminated (computed for comparison), and ZnS on P-terminated (experimentally observed). The dataset is organized into four calculation types, each covering all four polymorph/termination combinations: (i) Slabs: Pristine MnTe/InP heterostructure slabs used to compute total energies and interface energy densities (Eint) for all four configurations, as reported in Fig. 6 of the main text. (ii) Disorder: Same slab geometries with a P_Te + Te_P antisite defect pair introduced near the interface, used to assess chemical intermixing effects on interface stability (Fig. S8, SI). (iii) Strain: Pristine slab calculations with in-plane lattice parameters strained by -1% and +1% relative to the InP lattice constant, used to evaluate strain-dependent interface energetics (Fig. S9, SI). (iv) Charge_Density: Single-point calculations on the full heterostructure, the isolated InP slab, and the isolated MnTe slab at fixed geometry, used to compute differential charge density plots showing interfacial charge accumulation and depletion as a function of surface termination (Fig. S10, SI). Each calculation folder contains INCAR, KPOINTS, POSCAR, CONTCAR, OUTCAR, and POTCAR_info.txt (PAW potential information, excluding the full POTCAR due to VASP licensing restrictions). The calculations were performed using VASP 6.4.3 with PBE exchange-correlation, PAW potentials, a Hubbard correction of Ueff = 5 eV on Mn d-states, and A-type AFM spin initialization.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
NASA NTRS2003

Rough-Wall Channel Analysis Using Suboptimal Control Theory

The original aim of this work was to shed some light on the physics of turbulence over rough walls using large-eddy simulations and the suboptimal-control wall boundary conditions introduced by Nicoud et al. It was hoped that, if that algorithm was used to fit the mean velocity profile of the simulations to that of a rough-walled channel, instead of to a smooth one, the wall stresses introduced by the control algorithm would give some indication of what aspects of rough walls are most responsible for the modification of the flow in real turbulence. It was similarly expected that the structure of the resulting velocity fluctuations would share some of the characteristics of rough-walled flows, thus again suggesting what is intrinsic and what is accidental in the effect of geometric wall roughness. A secondary goal was to study the effect of 'unphysical' boundary conditions on the outside flow by observing how a relatively major change of the target velocity profile, and therefore presumably of the applied wall stresses, modifies properties such as the dominant length scales of the velocity fluctuations away from the wall. As will be seen below, this secondary goal grew more important during the course of the study, which was carried out during a short summer visit of the first two authors to the CTR. It became clear that there are open questions about the way in which the control algorithm models the boundary conditions, even for smooth walls, and that these questions make the physical interpretation of the results difficult. Considerable more work in that area seems to be needed before even relatively advanced large-eddy simulations, such as these, can be used to draw conclusions about the physics of wall-bounded turbulent flows. The numerical method is the same as in Nicoud et al. The modifications introduced in the original code are briefly described in section 2, but the original paper should be consulted for a full description of the algorithm. The results are presented in section 3 and summarized in section 4. The elementary properties of turbulence over rough walls which are used in the text have been taken from recent reviews such as Raupach et al. or Jimenez.

Flores, O.↗
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

Fine structure in the α decay of $^{179}$Hg and $^{177}$Au

Abstract The$$\upalpha $$ α -decay fine structure of$$^{179}$$ 179 Hg and$$^{177}$$ 177 Au was studied by means of decay spectroscopy. Two experiments were performed at the Accelerator Laboratory of the University of Jyväskylä (JYFL), Finland, utilizing the recoil separator RITU and a digital data acquisition system. The heavy-ion induced fusion-evaporation reactions$$^{82}_{36}$$ 36 82 Kr + $$^{100}_{44}$$ 44 100 Ru and$$^{88}_{38}$$ 38 88 Kr + $$^{92}_{42}$$ 42 92 Mo were used to produce the$$^{179}$$ 179 Hg and$$^{177}$$ 177 Au nuclei, respectively. Studying the evaporation residues (ER, recoils)-$$\alpha _1$$ α 1 -$$\alpha _2$$ α 2 correlations and$$\upalpha $$ α -$$\gamma $$ γ coincidences, a new$$\upalpha $$ α decay with E$$_\alpha $$ α = 6156(10) keV was observed from$$^{179}$$ 179 Hg. This decay populates the (9/2$$^-$$ - ) excited state at an excitation energy of 131.3(5) keV in$$^{175}$$ 175 Pt. The internal conversion coefficient for the 131.3(5) keV transition de-exciting this state was measured for the first time. Regarding the$$^{177}$$ 177 Au nucleus, a new$$\upalpha $$ α decay with E$$_\alpha $$ α = 5998(9) keV was observed to populate the 156.1(6) keV excited state in$$^{173}$$ 173 Ir. Two de-excitation paths were observed from this excited state. Moreover, a new 215.7(13) keV transition was observed to depopulate the 424.4(13) keV excited state in$$^{173}$$ 173 Ir. Properties of the$$^{179}$$ 179 Hg and$$^{177}$$ 177 Au$$\upalpha $$ α decays were examined in a framework of reduced widths and hindrance factors. For clarity and simplicity, the spin and parity assignments (e.g.$$J^{\pi }$$ J π ) are presented without brackets throughout the text.

Physics↗
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 OSTI2025

Auriga Streams – I: disrupting satellites surrounding Milky Way-mass haloes at multiple resolutions

In a hierarchically formed Universe, galaxies accrete smaller systems that tidally disrupt as they evolve in the host’s potential. We present a complete catalogue of disrupting galaxies accreted onto Milky Way-mass haloes from the Auriga suite of cosmological magnetohydrodynamic zoom-in simulations. We classify accretion events as intact satellites, stellar streams, or phase-mixed systems based on automated criteria calibrated to a visually classified sample, and match accretions to their counterparts in haloes re-simulated at higher resolution. Most satellites at the present day have lost substantial amounts of stellar mass – 67 per cent have $f_\text{bound} < 0.97$ (our threshold of lost stellar mass to no longer be considered intact), while 53 per cent satisfy a more stringent $f_\text{bound} < 0.8$. Streams typically outnumber intact systems, contribute a smaller fraction of overall accreted stars, and are substantial contributors at intermediate distances from the host centre ($\sim$0.1 to $\sim 0.7R_\text{200m}$, or $\sim$35 to $\sim$250 kpc for the Milky Way). We also identify accretion events that disrupt to form streams around massive intact satellites instead of the main host. Streams are more likely than intact or phase-mixed systems to have experienced pre-processing, suggesting this mechanism is important for setting disruption rates around Milky Way-mass haloes. All of these results are preserved across different simulation resolutions, though we do find some hints that satellites disrupt more readily at lower resolution. The Auriga haloes suggest that disrupting satellites surrounding Milky Way-mass galaxies are the norm and that a wealth of tidal features waits to be uncovered in upcoming surveys.

galaxies: haloes↗
DOE OSTI2026

Mountain Basin Controls on the Snow-to-Streamflow Signal: An AIC-Weighted Multiple Linear Regression Framework

A regression-based analysis quantifies how basin characteristics modulate the snow-to-streamflow signal. First, we use the ERA5-Land reanalysis gridded product (European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts reanalysis 5 -Land component) for 4,655 hydrologic unit code - 10 (HUC10) mountain basins across the western United States (US) for water years 1987–2024. Linear regressions are performed for peak snow water equivalent (SWE) and annual streamflow for each mountain basin. Models use ordinary least squares in Python’s statsmodels package. After which, an Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)–weighted ensemble multiple linear regression (MLR) framework with 47 watershed traits is used to predict the linear regression coefficient of determination (r-squared) defining the ability of peak SWE to predict annual streamflow across all mountain basin. Predictor sets are constrained to avoid multicollinearity by excluding models with variance inflation factors (VIF) greater than 5. Mountain basin traits included in the MLR include seasonal climate, topography, vegetation type and structure, and bedrock geology. Accepted models are considered if their AIC is within 2.0 of the model with the minimum AIC, or best model. To compare predictor influence across acceptable models, we computed standardized regression coefficients. To evaluate structural redundancy among models, we constructed binary inclusion vectors for each acceptable model, denoting whether a predictor was present (1) or absent (0). Core predictor variables are defined as occurring in at least 67% of the acceptable models. For this regional analysis, only one model was found acceptable, with higher snow-to-streamflow translation (higher r-squared) occurring in colder mountain basins with higher relative winter precipitation, more snow accumulation and a lower fraction of annual precipitation that falls in the spring and summer. The second component of the data package uses previously published, high-resolution output from an integrated hydrological model of the East River watershed using the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater and Surface water Flow model (GSFLOW, doi:10.15485/1998576). East River MLR expands upon the approach described above to explore the response of five streamflow metrics—annual streamflow, runoff efficiency, 7-day minimum flow, low-flow duration, and non-perennial stream fraction to snow system indicators including peak SWE, snow-covered area, snow disappearance date, and the fraction of basin area characterized by low-to-no snow, as well as seasonal precipitation and temperature, and annual hydrologic variables representing soil moisture, evapotranspiration (ET), the partitioning of incoming precipitation to evapotranspiration (ET/P), groundwater storage, and groundwater inflow to streams. MLR was done on all water years (P0: 1987-2024) and for each period as determined in the split analysis using pooled regression techniques (P1: 1987-2011 and P2: 2012-2024) to evaluate shifting predictor variable emphasis on streamflow generation. Results indicate that since 2012, peak SWE has lost statistical strength in its prediction of annual streamflow and runoff efficiency, and the indirect influence of spring temperature has emerged as critically important. Low-flow metrics remain largely influenced by soil moisture, vegetation water use and groundwater inflows with summer precipitation becoming a direct influence on minimum summer flow. Together, these data and Python-based analysis tools provide a framework for identifying the key watershed characteristics that control how streamflow responds to snow from year to year. The package also helps quantify uncertainty in statistical models and assess how snow–streamflow relationships vary across regions and over time. This dataset contains comma-separated values files (.csv), text files (.txt), python code files (.py), figure files (.png), and shapefiles (.cpg, .dbf, .prj, .sbn, .sbx, .shp, .xml). Further details on file contents and MLR execution can be found in the readme file and the FLMD files. 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2009

Influence of Combined Whole-Body Vibration Plus G-Loading on Visual Performance

Recent engineering analyses of the integrated Ares-Orion stack show that vibration levels for Orion crews have the potential to be much higher than those experienced in Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle vehicles. Of particular concern to the Constellation Program (CxP) is the 12 Hz thrust oscillation (TO) that the Ares-I rocket develops during the final ~20 seconds preceding first-stage separation, at maximum G-loading. While the structural-dynamic mitigations being considered can assure that vibration due to TO is reduced to below the CxP crew health limit, it remains to be determined how far below this limit vibration must be reduced to enable effective crew performance during launch. Moreover, this "performance" vibration limit will inform the operations concepts (and crew-system interface designs) for this critical phase of flight. While Gemini and Apollo studies provide preliminary guidance, the data supporting the historical limits were obtained using less advanced interface technologies and very different operations concepts. In this study, supported by the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) Human Research Program, we investigated display readability-a fundamental prerequisite for any interaction with electronic crew-vehicle interfaces-while observers were subjected to 12 Hz vibration superimposed on the 3.8 G loading expected for the TO period of ascent. Two age-matched groups of participants (16 general population and 13 Crew Office) performed a numerical display reading task while undergoing sustained 3.8 G loading and whole-body vibration at 0, 0.15, 0.3, 0.5, and 0.7 g in the eyeballs in/out (x-axis) direction. The time-constrained reading task used an Orion-like display with 10- and 14-pt non-proportional sans-serif fonts, and was designed to emulate the visual acquisition and processing essential for crew system monitoring. Compared to the no-vibration baseline, we found no significant effect of vibration at 0.15 and 0.3 g on task error rates (ER) or response times (RT). Significant degradations in both ER and RT, however, were observed at 0.5 and 0.7 g for 10-pt, and at 0.7 g for 14-pt font displays. These objective performance measures were mirrored by participants' subjective ratings. Interestingly, we found that the impact of vibration on ER increased with distance from the center of the display, but only for vertical displacements. Furthermore, no significant ER or RT aftereffects were detected immediately following vibration, regardless of amplitude. Lastly, given that our reading task required no specialized spaceflight expertise, our finding that effects were not statistically distinct between our two groups is not surprising. The results from this empirical study provide initial guidance for evaluating the display readability trade-space between text-font size and vibration amplitude. However, the outcome of this work should be considered preliminary in nature for a number of reasons: 1. The single 12 Hz x-axis vibration employed was based on earlier load-cycle models of the induced TO environment at the end of Ares-I first stage flight. Recent analyses of TO mitigation designs suggest that significant concurrent off-axis vibration may also occur. 2. The shirtsleeve environment in which we tested fails to capture the full kinematic and dynamic complexity of the physical interface between crewmember and the still-to-bematured helmet-suit-seat designs, and the impact these will have for vibration transmission and consequent performance. 3. By examining performance in this reading and number processing task, we are only assessing readability, a first and necessary step that in itself does not directly address the performance of more sophisticated operational tasks such as vehicle-health monitoring or manual control of the vehicle.

readability↗
NASA NTRS2024

Spacecraft Modeling, Attitude Determination, and Control: Quaternion-Based Approach

Spacecraft attitude determination and control is an important part of a spacecraft to achieve its designed mission. As of today, many spacecrafts have been successfully launched, and most of them have performed well as they were designed. Many research papers have been published to address the attitude determination and control design problems. Several text books are available for students to learn the technology and for engineers to use as references. The most popular spacecraft models for attitude determination algorithms and control design methods are the Euler angle models and the quaternion models . The Euler angle models have been proved very efficient as the linearized models are controllable, and all standard linear control system design methods are directly applicable. The drawbacks related to the Euler angle methods are (a) the designs based on linearized models may not globally stabilize the original nonlinear spacecraft, i.e., the design may not work when the attitude of the spacecraft is far away from the point where the linearization is performed; (b) the models depend on the rotational sequences, this can be error prone if several teams work on the same project and they use different rotational sequences; (c) for any rotational sequence, there is a singular point where the model is not applicable; and (d) since most attitude determination methods use quaternion to represent the spacecraft attitude, there is a need to transform quaternion into Euler angles. On the other hand, for quaternion models, people have found controllers that can globally stabilize nonlinear spacecraft systems; the models do not depend on rotational sequences and they have no singular point; and the quaternion is provided by attitude determination system and ready to use. The main problem with the quaternion model based control system design is that the linearized quaternion model is not controllable. Therefore, most published design methods heavily rely on Lyapunov functions for the nonlinear spacecraft system. But there is no systematic way to obtain a desired Lyapunov functions. Moreover, the Lyapunov function based designs focus on the closed-loop system stability but pay little attention to the closed-loop system performance. In a series of papers, the author proposed some reduced quaternion models which lead to some controllable linearized spacecraft models. Therefore, all standard linear system theory can be directly applied to analyze and design the spacecraft control systems. We showed that, in some cases, the designed control system is not only optimal for the linearized system, but also globally stabilize the original nonlinear system . Clearly, the reduced quaternion models do not depend on rotational sequences. Due to the special structure of the linearized spacecraft model, some most important design methods, such as LQR design and robust pole assignment design are very simple, enjoy the analytical solutions for some problems, have direct connection to the performance measures, such as settling time, rising time , and percentage of overshoot . All these features are attractive for high quality control system designs. The idea mentioned above is then extended to more spacecraft control problems using specific actuators such as magnetic torque bars and control momentum gyroscopes. These types of actuators may not provide exactly desired torques. Most existing methods use different conversions to get approximate solutions, meaning that these actuators may generate a torque close to but not equal to the desired one. Using the reduced quaternion models that incorporate the actuators into the system model, the control inputs are not torques but the operational parameters. The main benefit of this idea is that the control actions are not approximate but accurate. As all actuators have their operational limit, design with input constraints are also considered in this book by using recently developed interior-point optimization techniques. This book grows up from my research on the spacecraft attitude determination and control design methods in more than a decade which is focused on using reduced quaternion models because of their merits stated above. The book provides all necessary background materials on orbital dynamics, rotations and quaternion, frequently used reference frames, transformations between reference frames, space environment and disturbance torques, ephemeris astronomical vector calculations and measurement instruments, spacecraft control actuators and their models, so that the readers will get a global picture and can apply all these information into the spacecraft system modeling, attitude determination, and spacecraft control system designs, which is the main purpose of this book. This book is different from existing books in that we focus on quaternion based spacecraft control system designs and we consider only attitude control system design related problems, from spacecraft modeling, to attitude determination and estimation, to control system design method selection, to control algorithm development, and to the simulation of the control system designs. Moreover, this book addresses different attitude control tasks in the spacecraft life cycle, including spacecraft maneuver, orbit raising, attitude control, and rendezvous. Finally, this book emphasizes the state space design methods rather than the classical frequency design methods.

Attitude determination and control↗
NASA NTRS2018

GMI-IPS: Python Processing Software for Aircraft Campaigns

NASA's Atmospheric Tomography Mission (ATom) seeks to understand the impact of anthropogenic air pollution on gases in the Earth's atmosphere. Four flight campaigns are being deployed on a seasonal basis to establish a continuous global-scale data set intended to improve the representation of chemically reactive gases in global atmospheric chemistry models. The Global Modeling Initiative (GMI), is creating chemical transport simulations on a global scale for each of the ATom flight campaigns. To meet the computational demands required to translate the GMI simulation data to grids associated with the flights from the ATom campaigns, the GMI ICARTT Processing Software (GMI-IPS) has been developed and is providing key functionality for data processing and analysis in this ongoing effort. The GMI-IPS is written in Python and provides computational kernels for data interpolation and visualization tasks on GMI simulation data. A key feature of the GMI-IPS, is its ability to read ICARTT files, a text-based file format for airborne instrument data, and extract the required flight information that defines regional and temporal grid parameters associated with an ATom flight. Perhaps most importantly, the GMI-IPS creates ICARTT files containing GMI simulated data, which are used in collaboration with ATom instrument teams and other modeling groups. The initial main task of the GMI-IPS is to interpolate GMI model data to the finer temporal resolution (1-10 seconds) of a given flight. The model data includes basic fields such as temperature and pressure, but the main focus of this effort is to provide species concentrations of chemical gases for ATom flights. The software, which uses parallel computation techniques for data intensive tasks, linearly interpolates each of the model fields to the time resolution of the flight. The temporally interpolated data is then saved to disk, and is used to create additional derived quantities. In order to translate the GMI model data to the spatial grid of the flight path as defined by the pressure, latitude, and longitude points at each flight time record, a weighted average is then calculated from the nearest neighbors in two dimensions (latitude, longitude). Using SciPya's Regular Grid Interpolator, interpolation functions are generated for the GMI model grid and the calculated weighted averages. The flight path points are then extracted from the ATom ICARTT instrument file, and are sent to the multi-dimensional interpolating functions to generate GMI field quantities along the spatial path of the flight. The interpolated field quantities are then written to a ICARTT data file, which is stored for further manipulation. The GMI-IPS is aware of a generic ATom ICARTT header format, containing basic information for all flight campaigns. The GMI-IPS includes logic to edit metadata for the derived field quantities, as well as modify the generic header data such as processing dates and associated instrument files. The ICARTT interpolated data is then appended to the modified header data, and the ICARTT processing is complete for the given flight and ready for collaboration. The output ICARTT data adheres to the ICARTT file format standards V1.1. The visualization component of the GMI-IPS uses Matplotlib extensively and has several functions ranging in complexity. First, it creates a model background curtain for the flight (time versus model eta levels) with the interpolated flight data superimposed on the curtain. Secondly, it creates a time-series plot of the interpolated flight data. Lastly, the visualization component creates averaged 2D model slices (longitude versus latitude) with overlaid flight track circles at key pressure levels. The GMI-IPS consists of a handful of classes and supporting functionality that have been generalized to be compatible with any ICARTT file that adheres to the base class definition. The base class represents a generic ICARTT entry, only defining a single time entry and 3D spatial positioning parameters. Other classes inherit from this base class; several classes for input ICARTT instrument files, which contain the necessary flight positioning information as a basis for data processing, as well as other classes for output ICARTT files, which contain the interpolated model data. Utility classes provide functionality for routine procedures such as: comparing field names among ICARTT files, reading ICARTT entries from a data file and storing them in data structures, and returning a reduced spatial grid based on a collection of ICARTT entries. Although the GMI-IPS is compatible with GMI model data, it can be adapted with reasonable effort for any simulation that creates Hierarchical Data Format (HDF) files. The same can be said of its adaptability to ICARTT files outside of the context of the ATom mission. The GMI-IPS contains just under 30,000 lines of code, eight classes, and a dozen drivers and utility programs. It is maintained with GIT source code management and has been used to deliver processed GMI model data for the ATom campaigns that have taken place to date.

Damon, M. R.↗
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 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↗