Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Ranking methods”

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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2019

Koopman Operators for Generalized Persistence of Excitation Conditions for Nonlinear Systems

It is hard to identify nonlinear biological models strictly from data, with results that are often sensitive to experimental conditions. Automated experimental workflows and liquid handling enables unprecedented throughput, as well as the capacity to generate extremely large datasets. We seek to develop generalized identifiability conditions for informing the design of automated experiments to discover predictive nonlinear biological models. For linear systems, identifiability is characterized by persistence of excitation conditions. For nonlinear systems, no such persistence of excitation conditions exist. We use the input-Koopman operator method to model nonlinear systems and derive identifiability conditions for openloop systems initialized from a single initial condition. We show that nonlinear identifiability is intrinsically tied to the rank of a given dataset’s power spectral density, transformed through the lifted Koopman observable space. We illustrate these identifiability conditions with a simulated synthetic gene circuit model, the repressilator. We illustrate how rank degeneracy in datasets results in overfitted nonlinear models of the repressilator, resulting in poor predictive accuracy. Our findings provide novel experimental design criteria for discovery of globally predictive nonlinear models of biological phenomena.

Boddupalli, Nibodh↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Predictor-Corrector Strategy for Adaptivity in Dynamical Low-Rank Approximations

Here, in this paper, we present a predictor-corrector strategy for constructing rank-adaptive, dynamical low-rank approximations (DLRAs) of matrix-valued ODE systems. The strategy is a compromise between (i) low-rank step-truncation approaches that alternately evolve and compress solutions and (ii) strict DLRA approaches that augment the low-rank manifold using subspaces generated locally in time by the DLRA integrator. The strategy is based on an analysis of the error between a forward temporal update into the ambient full-rank space, which is typically computed in a step-truncation approach before recompressing, and the standard DLRA update, which is forced to live in a low-rank manifold. We use this error, without requiring its full-rank representation, to correct the DLRA solution. A key ingredient for maintaining a low-rank representation of the error is a randomized SVD, which introduces some degree of stochastic variability into the implementation. The strategy is formulated and implemented in the context of discontinuous Galerkin spatial discretizations of PDEs and applied to several versions of DLRA methods found in the literature as well as a new variant. Numerical experiments comparing the predictor-corrector strategy to other methods demonstrate robustness to overcome shortcomings of step truncation or strict DLRA approaches: The former may require more memory than is strictly needed, while the latter may miss transients solution features that cannot be recovered. The effect of randomization, tolerances, and other implementation parameters is also explored.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2019

Quantitative Risk Management - Risk Informed Decision Making on High-Risk Waste Remediation Projects - 19022

For every $1 billion invested in projects, $97 million is wasted due to poor project performance. That means 9.7% of money spent on projects is wasted due to poor risk and uncertainty management. High-risk projects, similar to those in waste remediation, have the most to lose. A solid quantitative risk management program is one of the keys to increasing the likelihood that a project will succeed. A quantitative risk program solves two major problems that challenge the effective management of risk and uncertainty: 1. Risks arise at all levels of an organization; however, not all organizational levels have an effective way to identify and resolve them. This can lead to risks that, even if identified, are not reported. 2. Decision-makers are often forced to operate solely on intuition when implementing mitigation strategies, not fully understanding the effects that certain decisions have on the program's cost and schedule. A quantitative risk program uses a risk register and builds it into the project/program integrated schedule to assess the impact of these risks, typically at the 80% confidence contingency level for specific milestones and/or project completion. Implementing a quantitative risk program drives a forward-thinking, proactive mentality to problem solving into all levels of the organization. A healthy risk program for regular reporting and communication ensures that all members of an organization are thinking about risks and using their communication channels to resolve them. It gives a method of communication and incentive for all levels in the organization and helps to ensure that risks will be reported and resolved. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has developed tools and methods that provide a level of realism for analyzing different scenarios and estimating contingency that does not exist in the standard industry risk tool kit. These tools and methods provide decision-makers with actionable, quantitatively based information to guide their decision making. The first tool is a probabilistic branching risk model for mitigation strategies. Current quantitative risk analysis tools in the industry simulate two cases: fully mitigated and un-mitigated. In the fully mitigated case, the user assumes that every planned mitigation activity is successful. In the un-mitigated case, the user assumes that none are successful. The truth lies between these two extremes. The PNNL team has developed a probabilistic risk model for mitigation scenarios that includes a probability that a mitigation activity will succeed and a probability that a mitigation action will be funded. These probabilities are elicited from subject matter experts and ensure that the contingency calculations at the specified confidence are approaching reality. The second tool developed at PNNL is the Risk Box, which is a tool that integrates with different scenarios in the risk register. For example, say the user is faced with two different and mutually exclusive mitigation actions to reduce a risk. The Risk Box methodology performs the contingency calculations and then displays them on a time-phased graph that shows how each scenario reduces the risk contingency needed on the project/program. This graph then provides quantitative information to show decision-makers which mitigation action provides the greatest reduction (cost and schedule) in risk contingency for the program. Implementing these and other tools within a structured risk program increases the likelihood that a project will come in on schedule and budget, ensures that all personnel are proactively thinking about problems and resolutions, creates communication channels for all members to submit and resolve potential problems, produces a prioritized list of risk rankings to focus leadership on issues that may cause the biggest problems, and implements processes that drive updates to the risk program as the risk profile changes. PNNL has been developing these methods and using them on projects for over 20 years. They have been successfully applied on waste management projects, high-tech research and development projects, and construction projects, and they continue to be used on a number of U.S. Department of Energy projects today. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
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

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 OSTI2024

A new “gold standard”: Perturbative triples corrections in unitary coupled cluster theory and prospects for quantum computing

A major difficulty in quantum simulation is the adequate treatment of a large collection of entangled particles, synonymous with electron correlation in electronic structure theory, with coupled cluster (CC) theory being the leading framework for dealing with this problem. Augmenting computationally affordable low-rank approximations in CC theory with a perturbative account of higher-rank excitations is a tractable and effective way of accounting for the missing electron correlation in those approximations. This is perhaps best exemplified by the “gold standard” CCSD(T) method, which bolsters the baseline CCSD with the effects of triple excitations using considerations from many-body perturbation theory (MBPT). Despite this established success, such a synergy between MBPT and the unitary analog of CC theory (UCC) has not been explored. In this work, we propose a similar approach wherein converged UCCSD amplitudes are leveraged to evaluate energy corrections associated with triple excitations, leading to the UCCSD[T] method. In terms of quantum computing, this correction represents an entirely classical post-processing step that improves the energy estimate by accounting for triple excitation effects without necessitating new quantum algorithm developments or increasing demand for quantum resources. The rationale behind this choice is shown to be rigorous by studying the properties of finite-order UCC energy functionals, and our efforts do not support the addition of the fifth-order contributions as in the (T) correction. We assess the performance of these approaches on a collection of small molecules and demonstrate the benefits of harnessing the inherent synergy between MBPT and UCC theories.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2020

Prediction of condition-specific regulatory genes using machine learning

Recent advances in genomic technologies have generated data on large-scale protein–DNA interactions and open chromatin regions for many eukaryotic species. How to identify condition-specific functions of transcription factors using these data has become a major challenge in genomic research. To solve this problem, we have developed a method called ConSReg, which provides a novel approach to integrate regulatory genomic data into predictive machine learning models of key regulatory genes. Using Arabidopsis as a model system, we tested our approach to identify regulatory genes in data sets from single cell gene expression and from abiotic stress treatments. Our results showed that ConSReg accurately predicted transcription factors that regulate differentially expressed genes with an average auROC of 0.84, which is 23.5–25% better than enrichment-based approaches. To further validate the performance of ConSReg, we analyzed an independent data set related to plant nitrogen responses. ConSReg provided better rankings of the correct transcription factors in 61.7% of cases, which is three times better than other plant tools. We applied ConSReg to Arabidopsis single cell RNA-seq data, successfully identifying candidate regulatory genes that control cell wall formation. Our methods provide a new approach to define candidate regulatory genes using integrated genomic data in plants.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2023

Sparsity of the electron repulsion integral tensor using different localized virtual orbital representations in local second-order Møller–Plesset theory

Utilizing localized orbitals, local correlation theory can reduce the unphysically high system-size scaling of post-Hartree–Fock (post-HF) methods to linear scaling in insulating molecules. The sparsity of the four-index electron repulsion integral (ERI) tensor is central to achieving this reduction. For second-order Møller–Plesset theory (MP2), one of the simplest post-HF methods, only the (ia|jb) ERIs are needed, coupling occupied orbitals i, j and virtuals a, b. In this paper, we compare the numerical sparsity (called the “ragged list”) and two other approaches revealing the low-rank sparsity of the ERI. The ragged list requires only one set of (localized) virtual orbitals, and we find that the orthogonal valence virtual-hard virtual set of virtuals originally proposed by Subotnik et al. gives the sparsest ERI tensor. To further compress the ERI tensor, the pair natural orbital (PNO) type representation uses different sets of virtual orbitals for different occupied orbital pairs, while the occupied-specific virtual (OSV) approach uses different virtuals for each occupied orbital. Here, our results indicate that while the low-rank PNO representation achieves significant rank reduction, it also requires more memory than the ragged list. The OSV approach requires similar memory to that of the ragged list, but it involves greater algorithmic complexity. An approximation (called the “fixed sparsity pattern”) for solving the local MP2 equations using the numerically sparse ERI tensor is proposed and tested to be sufficiently accurate and to have highly controllable error. A low-scaling local MP2 algorithm based on the ragged list and the fixed sparsity pattern is therefore promising.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2025

Artificial Intelligence Benchmarking

AI benchmarking is a method for evaluating the effectiveness of an AI model using a set of standardized metrics, for example, high school-level math exams. These benchmarks and their results will enable ranking various AI models based on their effectiveness in performing a specific task.

Krishnan, Anjay [Fermilab]↗
DOE OSTI2025

6D large charge and 2D Virasoro blocks

We compute observables in the interacting rank-one 6D 𝒩 =(2,0) superconformal field theory (SCFT) at large 𝑅-charge. We focus on correlators involving Φ 𝑛 , namely symmetric products of the bottom component of the supermultiplet containing the stress tensor. By using the moduli space effective action and methods from the large-charge expansion, we compute the operator product expansion coefficients ⟨Φ 𝑛 ⁢Φ 𝑚 ⁢Φ 𝑛+𝑚 ⟩ in an expansion in 1/𝑛. The coefficients of the expansion are only partially determined from the 6D perspective, but we manage to fix them order-by-order in 1/𝑛 numerically by utilizing the 6⁢D/2⁢D correspondence. This is made possible by the fact that this 6D observable can be extracted in 2D from a specific double-scaling limit of the vacuum Virasoro block, which can be efficiently computed numerically. We also extend the computation to higher-rank SCFTs, and discuss various applications of our results to 6D as well as 2D.

classical solutions in field theory↗
DOE OSTI2023

Exploration of a Potential Desirability of Outcome Ranking Endpoint for Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections Using 9 Registrational Trials for Antibacterial Drugs

Abstract Background Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a novel approach to clinical trial design that incorporates safety and efficacy assessments into an ordinal ranking system to evaluate overall outcomes of clinical trial participants. Here, we derived and applied a disease-specific DOOR endpoint to registrational trials for complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI). Methods Initially, we applied an a priori DOOR prototype to electronic patient-level data from 9 phase 3 noninferiority trials for cIAI submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration between 2005 and 2019. We derived a cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint based on clinically meaningful events that trial participants experienced. Next, we applied the cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint to the same datasets and, for each trial, estimated the probability that a participant assigned to the study treatment would have a more desirable DOOR or component outcome than if assigned to the comparator. Results Three key findings informed the cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint: (1) a significant proportion of participants underwent additional surgical procedures related to their baseline infection; (2) infectious complications of cIAI were diverse; and (3) participants with worse outcomes experienced more infectious complications, more serious adverse events, and underwent more procedures. DOOR distributions between treatment arms were similar in all trials. DOOR probability estimates ranged from 47.4% to 50.3% and were not significantly different. Component analyses depicted risk-benefit assessments of study treatment versus comparator. Conclusions We designed and evaluated a potential DOOR endpoint for cIAI trials to further characterize overall clinical experiences of participants. Similar data-driven approaches can be utilized to create other infectious disease–specific DOOR endpoints.

Immunology↗
DOE OSTI2023

Combining pairwise structural similarity and deep learning interface contact prediction to estimate protein complex model accuracy in CASP15

Abstract Estimating the accuracy of quaternary structural models of protein complexes and assemblies (EMA) is important for predicting quaternary structures and applying them to studying protein function and interaction. The pairwise similarity between structural models is proven useful for estimating the quality of protein tertiary structural models, but it has been rarely applied to predicting the quality of quaternary structural models. Moreover, the pairwise similarity approach often fails when many structural models are of low quality and similar to each other. To address the gap, we developed a hybrid method (MULTICOM_qa) combining a pairwise similarity score (PSS) and an interface contact probability score (ICPS) based on the deep learning inter‐chain contact prediction for estimating protein complex model accuracy. It blindly participated in the 15th Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP15) in 2022 and performed very well in estimating the global structure accuracy of assembly models. The average per‐target correlation coefficient between the model quality scores predicted by MULTICOM_qa and the true quality scores of the models of CASP15 assembly targets is 0.66. The average per‐target ranking loss in using the predicted quality scores to rank the models is 0.14. It was able to select good models for most targets. Moreover, several key factors (i.e., target difficulty, model sampling difficulty, skewness of model quality, and similarity between good/bad models) for EMA are identified and analyzed. The results demonstrate that combining the multi‐model method (PSS) with the complementary single‐model method (ICPS) is a promising approach to EMA.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Space-Time Finite Element Tensor Network Approach for the Time-Dependent Convection–Diffusion–Reaction Equation with Variable Coefficients

In this paper, we present a new space-time Galerkin-like method, where we treat the discretization of spatial and temporal domains simultaneously. This method utilizes a mixed formulation of the tensor-train (TT) and quantized tensor-train (QTT) (please see Section Tensor-Train Decomposition), designed for the finite element discretization (Q1-FEM) of the time-dependent convection–diffusion–reaction (CDR) equation. We reformulate the assembly process of the finite element discretized CDR to enhance its compatibility with tensor operations and introduce a low-rank tensor structure for the finite element operators. Recognizing the banded structure inherent in the finite element framework’s discrete operators, we further exploit the QTT format of the CDR to achieve greater speed and compression. Additionally, we present a comprehensive approach for integrating variable coefficients of CDR into the global discrete operators within the TT/QTT framework. The effectiveness of the proposed method, in terms of memory efficiency and computational complexity, is demonstrated through a series of numerical experiments, including a semi-linear example.

convection–diffusion–reaction equation↗
DOE OSTI2021

A compute-bound formulation of Galerkin model reduction for linear time-invariant dynamical systems

This work aims to advance computational methods for projection-based reduced-order models (ROMs) of linear time-invariant (LTI) dynamical systems. For such systems, current practice relies on ROM formulations expressing the state as a rank-1 tensor (i.e., a vector), leading to computational kernels that are memory bandwidth bound and, therefore, ill-suited for scalable performance on modern architectures. This weakness can be particularly limiting when tackling many-query studies, where one needs to run a large number of simulations. This work introduces a reformulation, called rank-2 Galerkin, of the Galerkin ROM for LTI dynamical systems which converts the nature of the ROM problem from memory bandwidth to compute bound. We present the details of the formulation and its implementation, and demonstrate its utility through numerical experiments using, as a test case, the simulation of elastic seismic shear waves in an axisymmetric domain. We quantify and analyze performance and scaling results for varying numbers of threads and problem sizes. In conclusion, we present an end-to-end demonstration of using the rank-2 Galerkin ROM for a Monte Carlo sampling study. We show that the rank-2 Galerkin ROM is one order of magnitude more efficient than the rank-1 Galerkin ROM (the current practice) and about 970 times more efficient than the full-order model, while maintaining accuracy in both the mean and statistics of the field.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Machine learning predicts new anti-CRISPR proteins

The increasing use of CRISPR–Cas9 in medicine, agriculture, and synthetic biology has accelerated the drive to discover new CRISPR–Cas inhibitors as potential mechanisms of control for gene editing applications. Many anti-CRISPRs have been found that inhibit the CRISPR–Cas adaptive immune system. However, comparing all currently known anti-CRISPRs does not reveal a shared set of properties for facile bioinformatic identification of new anti-CRISPR families. Here, we describe AcRanker, a machine learning based method to aid direct identification of new potential anti-CRISPRs using only protein sequence information. Using a training set of known anti-CRISPRs, we built a model based on XGBoost ranking. We then applied AcRanker to predict candidate anti-CRISPRs from predicted prophage regions within self-targeting bacterial genomes and discovered two previously unknown anti-CRISPRs: AcrllA20 (ML1) and AcrIIA21 (ML8). We show that AcrIIA20 strongly inhibits Streptococcus iniae Cas9 (SinCas9) and weakly inhibits Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 (SpyCas9). We also show that AcrIIA21 inhibits SpyCas9, Streptococcus aureus Cas9 (SauCas9) and SinCas9 with low potency. The addition of AcRanker to the anti-CRISPR discovery toolkit allows researchers to directly rank potential anti-CRISPR candidate genes for increased speed in testing and validation of new anti-CRISPRs. A web server implementation for AcRanker is available online at http://acranker.pythonanywhere.com/.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Simulation of open quantum systems via low-depth convex unitary evolutions

Simulating physical systems on quantum devices is one of the most promising applications of quantum technology. Current quantum approaches to simulating open quantum systems are still practically challenging on NISQ-era devices, because they typically require ancilla qubits and extensive controlled sequences. In this work, we propose a hybrid quantum-classical approach for simulating a class of open system dynamics called random-unitary channels. These channels naturally decompose into a series of convex unitary evolutions, which can then be efficiently sampled and run as independent circuits. The method does not require deep ancilla frameworks and thus can be implemented with lower noise costs. We implement simulations of open quantum systems up to dozens of qubits and with large channel ranks. Published by the American Physical Society 2024

Peetz, Joseph (ORCID:0000000274458028)↗
DOE OSTI2023

DEEPEN 3D PFA Favorability Models and 2D Favorability Maps at Newberry Volcano

DEEPEN stands for DE-risking Exploration of geothermal Plays in magmatic ENvironments. Part of the DEEPEN project involved developing and testing a methodology for a 3D play fairway analysis (PFA) for multiple play types (conventional hydrothermal, superhot EGS, and supercritical). This was tested using new and existing geoscientific exploration datasets at Newberry Volcano. This GDR submission includes images, data, and models related to the 3D favorability and uncertainty models and the 2D favorability and uncertainty maps. The DEEPEN PFA Methodology is based on the method proposed by Poux et al. (2020), which uses the Leapfrog Geothermal software with the Edge extension to conduct PFA in 3D. This method uses all available data to build a 3D geodata model which can be broken down into smaller blocks and analyzed with advanced geostatistical methods. Each data set is imported into a 3D model in Leapfrog and divided into smaller blocks. Conditional queries can then be used to assign each block an index value which conditionally ranks each block's favorability, from 0-5 with 5 being most favorable, for each model (e.g., lithologic, seismic, magnetic, structural). The values between 0-5 assigned to each block are referred to as index values. The final step of the process is to combine all the index models to create a favorability index. This involves multiplying each index model by a given weight and then summing the resulting values. The DEEPEN PFA Methodology follows this approach, but split up by the specific geologic components of each play type. These components are defined as follows for each magmatic play type: 1. Conventional hydrothermal plays in magmatic environments: Heat, fluid, and permeability 2. Superhot EGS plays: Heat, thermal insulation, and producibility (the ability to create and sustain fractures suitable for and EGS reservoir) 3. Supercritical plays: Heat, supercritical fluid, pressure seal, and producibility (the proper permeability and pressure conditions to allow production of supercritical fluid) More information on these components and their development can be found in Kolker et al., 2022. For the purposes of subsurface imaging, it is easier to detect a permeable fluid-filled reservoir than it is to detect separate fluid and permeability components. Therefore, in this analysis, we combine fluid and permeability for conventional hydrothermal plays, and supercritical fluid and producibility for supercritical plays. More information on this process is described in the following sections. We also project the 3D favorability volumes onto 2D surfaces for simplified joint interpretation, and we incorporate an uncertainty component. Uncertainty was modeled using the best approach for the dataset in question, for the datasets where we had enough information to do so. Identifying which subsurface parameters are the least resolved can help qualify current PFA results and focus future efforts in data collection. Where possible, the resulting uncertainty models/indices were weighted using the same weights applied to the respective datasets, and summed, following the PFA methodology above, but for uncertainty. There are two different versions of the Leapfrog model and associated favorability models: - v1.0: The first release in June 2023 - v2.1: The second release, with improvements made to the earthquake catalog (included additional identified events, removed duplicate events), to the temperature model (fixed a deep BHT), and to the index models (updated the seismicity-heat source index models for supercritical and EGS, and the resistivity-insulation index models for all three play types). Also uses the jet color map rather than the magma color map for improved interpretability. - v2.1.1: Updated to include v2.0 uncertainty results (see below for uncertainty model versions) There are two different versions of the associated uncertainty models: - v1.0: The first release in June 2023 - v2.0: The se...

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗