Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “PHYSICAL FITNESS”

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 469 records · Page 26
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

New physics in rare B decays after Moriond 2021

Abstract The anomalies in rare B decays endure. We present results of an updated global analysis that takes into account the latest experimental input – in particular the recent results on $$R_K$$ R K and BR $$(B_s \rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^-)$$ ( B s → μ + μ - ) – and that qualitatively improves the treatment of theory uncertainties. Fit results are presented for the Wilson coefficients of four-fermion contact interactions. We find that muon specific Wilson coefficients $$C_9 \simeq -0.73$$ C 9 ≃ - 0.73 or $$C_9 = -C_{10} \simeq -0.39$$ C 9 = - C 10 ≃ - 0.39 continue to give an excellent description of the data. If only theoretically clean observables are considered, muon specific $$C_{10} \simeq 0.60$$ C 10 ≃ 0.60 or $$C_9=-C_{10} \simeq -0.35$$ C 9 = - C 10 ≃ - 0.35 improve over the Standard Model by $$\sqrt{\Delta \chi ^2} \simeq 4.7\sigma $$ Δ χ 2 ≃ 4.7 σ and $$\sqrt{\Delta \chi ^2} \simeq 4.6\sigma $$ Δ χ 2 ≃ 4.6 σ , respectively. In various new physics scenarios we provide predictions for lepton flavor universality observables and CP asymmetries that can be tested with more data. We update our previous combination of ATLAS, CMS, and LHCb data on BR $$(B_s \rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^-)$$ ( B s → μ + μ - ) and BR $$(B^0\rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^-)$$ ( B 0 → μ + μ - ) taking into account the full two-dimensional non-Gaussian experimental likelihoods.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2023

A comparison of explosively driven shock wave radius versus time scaling approaches

Abstract Explosively driven shock wave radius versus time profiles are frequently used to document energy release and relative explosive performance. Recently, two universal shock wave radius versus time profiles have been presented in the literature, which demonstrate the ability to represent explosively driven shock wave profiles for all explosive sources in any fluid environment. These two universal shock wave profiles are examined here relative to each other and relative to a commonly used nonlinear shock wave profile, which is fit to experimental data for individual explosive materials. The nonlinear profile, originally developed by Dewey, is examined here, and a universal non-dimensional form of the equation is proposed. The universal shock wave profiles are all found to be relatively similar, but with slight variations in a transition region of non-dimensional radii $$0.15\lesssim R^*\lesssim 2$$ 0.15 ≲ R ∗ ≲ 2 . The variations in this region result in different estimations of energy release or blast strength between the curve fits.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Fundamentals on dependence of volume on pressure and temperature

The common wisdom that volume decreases with pressure and increases with temperature is analyzed in terms of Hillert nonequilibrium thermodynamics in the present work. It is shown that the derivative of volume to pressure in a stable system is always negative, i.e., volume decreases with the increase of pressure, when all other natural variables of the system are kept constant. This originates from the stability requirement that the conjugate variables, such as volume and negative pressure, must change in the same direction in a stable system. Consequently, since volume and temperature are not conjugate variables, they do not have to change in the same direction and thus do change in opposite directions in both natural and man-made systems. It is shown that the decrease of volume with the increase of temperature, commonly referred as negative thermal expansion (NTE) in the literature, originates from the statistical competitions of configurations in the system when the volumes of metastable configurations are smaller than that of the ground-state configuration. As a result, it is demonstrated that the zentropy theory can concisely explain and accurately predict NTE based on the density functional theory without fitting parameters.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2021

On wavelength-dependent exciton lifetime distributions in reconstituted CP29 antenna of the photosystem II and its site-directed mutants

To provide more insight on the excitonic structure and exciton lifetimes of the wild type (WT) CP29 complex of Photosystem II (PSII) we measured high-resolution (low temperature) absorption, emission, and hole burned spectra for the A2 and B3 mutants, which lack chlorophylls a612 and b614 (Chls), respectively. Experimental and modeling results obtained for the WT CP29 and A2/B3 mutants provide new insight on the mutation-induced changes at the molecular level and shed more light on energy transfer dynamics. Simulations of the A2 and B3 optical spectra, using the second-order non-Markovian theory, and comparison with improved fits of WT CP29 optical spectra, provide more insight on their excitonic structure, mutation induced changes, and frequency-dependent distributions of exciton lifetimes (T 1 ). A new Hamiltonian obtained for WT CP29 reveals that deletion of Chls a612 or b614 induces changes in the site-energies of all remaining Chls. Hamiltonians obtained for A2 and B3 mutants are discussed in the context of the energy landscape of chlorophylls, excitonic structure and the transfer kinetics. Our data suggest that the lowest exciton states in A2 and B3 mutants are contributed by a611(57%), a610(17%), a615(15%) and a615(58%), a611(20%), a612(15%) Chls, respectively, although other compositions of lowest energy states are also discussed. Lastly, we argue that the calculated exciton decay times are consistent with both the hole-burning and recent transient absorption measurements. Wavelength-dependent T 1 distributions offer more insight into the interpretation of kinetic traces commonly described by discrete exponentials in global analysis/global fitting of transient absorption experiments.

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

The equations of state of statically compressed palladium and rhodium

Here, the pressure–volume equations of state of palladium and rhodium statically compressed in neon are presented. Vinet fits give parameters for palladium: V0=58.678(73) Å 3 , B 0 =189.3(30) GPa, B' 0 =5.473(63), and rhodium: V 0 =55.062(63) Å3, B 0 =241.3(65) GPa, B' 0 =5.34(24). Both metals are observed to react with hydrocarbons under pressure to form hydrides. Existing equations of state are discussed with regard to potential inadvertent hydrogen contamination as a source for discrepancies and anomalous fitted parameters.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: an updated measurement of the Hubble constant using the inverse distance ladder

We measure the current expansion rate of the Universe, Hubble’s constant $H_0$, by calibrating the absolute magnitudes of supernovae to distances measured by baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO). This ‘inverse distance ladder’ technique provides an alternative to calibrating supernovae using nearby absolute distance measurements, replacing the calibration with a high-redshift anchor. We use the recent release of 1829 supernovae from the Dark Energy Survey spanning $0.01\lt z\lt 1.13$ anchored to the recent baryon acoustic oscillation measurements from Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) spanning $0.30 \lt z_{\mathrm{eff}}\lt 2.33$. To trace cosmology to $z=0$, we use the third-, fourth-, and fifth-order cosmographic models, which, by design, are agnostic about the energy content and expansion history of the universe. With the inclusion of the higher redshift DESI-BAO data, the third-order model is a poor fit to both data sets, with the fourth-order model being preferred by the Akaike Information Criterion. Using the fourth-order cosmographic model, we find $H_0=67.19^{+0.66}_{-0.64}\mathrm{~km} \mathrm{~s}^{-1} \mathrm{~Mpc}^{-1}$, in agreement with the value found by Planck without the need to assume Flat-$\Lambda$CDM. However, the best-fitting expansion history differs from that of Planck, providing continued motivation to investigate these tensions.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Large-$N_c$ analysis of magnetic and axial two-nucleon currents in pionless effective field theory

We analyze magnetic and axial two-nucleon contact terms in a combined large-$N_c$ and pionless effective field theory expansion. These terms play important roles in correctly describing, e.g., the low-energy cross section of radiative neutron capture and the deuteron magnetic moment. In this work we show that the large-$N_c$ expansion hints towards a hierarchy between the two leading-order magnetic terms that matches that found in phenomenological fits. We also comment on the issue of naturalness in different Lagrangian bases.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Quintessential cosmological tensions

Several cosmological tensions have emerged in light of recent data, most notably in the inferences of the parameters and . We explore the possibility of alleviating both these tensions simultaneously by means of the Albrecht-Skordis “quintessence” potential. The field can reduce the size of the sound horizon while concurrently suppressing the power in matter density fluctuations before it comes to dominate the energy density budget today. Interestingly, this rich set of dynamics is governed entirely by one free parameter that is of in Planck units. We find that the inferred value of can be increased, while that of can be decreased, both by compared to the case. However, ultimately the model is disfavored by Planck and BAO data alone, compared to the standard model, with a . When including large scale structure and supernova data we find . We note that historically much attention has been focused on preserving the three angular scales , , and to their values. Our work presents an example of how, while doing so indeed maintains a relatively good fit to the cosmic microwave background data for an increased number of ultrarelativistic species, it is a priori insufficient in maintaining such a fit in more general model spaces.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Returning CP-observables to the frames they belong

Optimal kinematic observables are often defined in specific frames and then approximated at the reconstruction level. We show how multi-dimensional unfolding methods allow us to reconstruct these observables in their proper rest frame and in a probabilistically faithful way. We illustrate our approach with a measurement of a CP-phase in the top Yukawa coupling. Our method makes use of key advantages of generative unfolding, but as a constructed observable it fits into standard LHC analysis frameworks.

Physics↗
DOE OSTI2020

Using density functional theory to construct multiphase equations of state: tin as an example

We present a general methodology for using density functional theory (DFT) calculations as a basis for constructing multiphase equations of state (EOS). Focusing on tin as an example, we discuss the full process of generating a tabular EOS, starting from first-principles calculations and arriving at a full EOS in agreement with existing experimental data. We begin by describing DFT calculations for the five solid phases and liquid phase of tin, including cold curve, phonon, and DFT-based molecular dynamics calculations. We then discuss methods for incorporating DFT results into materials models used in OpenSesame, the program used to create a full tabular multiphase EOS. Next, we outline a general strategy for adjusting model parameters in OpenSesame to fit to a variety of experimental data, including isobaric data, isothermal data, shock data, solid-solid phase boundary measurements, and measurements of the melt curve. We end with a discussion of the advantages of using DFT data as a foundation for EOS generation and discuss potential strategies for automated EOS generation based on the fitting process highlighted in this work.

74 ATOMIC AND MOLECULAR PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data

That neutrinos carry a nonvanishing rest mass is evidence of physics beyond the Standard Model of elementary particles. Their absolute mass holds relevance in fields from particle physics to cosmology. We report on the search for the effective electron antineutrino mass with the KATRIN experiment. KATRIN performs precision spectroscopy of the tritium β-decay close to the kinematic endpoint. On the basis of the first five measurement campaigns, we derived a best-fit value of $m^{2}_{v} = -0.14^{+0.13}_{-0.15}$ eV 2 , resulting in an upper limit of m ν < 0.45 eV at 90% confidence level. Stemming from 36 million electrons collected in 259 measurement days, a substantial reduction of the background level, and improved systematic uncertainties, this result tightens KATRIN’s previous bound by a factor of almost two.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
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 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 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 OSTI2023

Pursuit of paired dijet resonances in the Run 2 dataset with ATLAS

New particles with large masses that decay into hadronically interacting particles are predicted by many models of physics beyond the Standard Model. A search for a massive resonance that decays into pairs of dijet resonances is performed using 140 fb –1 of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV recorded by the ATLAS detector during Run 2 of the Large Hadron Collider. Resonances are searched for in the invariant mass of the tetrajet system, and in the average invariant mass of the pair of dijet systems. A data-driven background estimate is obtained by fitting the tetrajet and dijet invariant mass distributions with a four-parameter dijet function and a search for local excesses from resonant production of dijet pairs is performed. No significant excess of events beyond the Standard Model expectation is observed, and upper limits are set on the production cross sections of new physics scenarios.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Interpretable, extensible linear and symbolic regression models for charge density prediction using a hierarchy of many-body correlation descriptors

Here, density functional theory (DFT) is routinely used to make electronic structure predictions for high-throughput screening of materials and molecules for technologically relevant areas, like the identification of better catalysts, electronic materials, and drug discovery. However, the DFT formalism is limited by (a) its poor (quadratic-to-quartic) scaling, and (b) the need to perform repeated eigenvalue computations of the electronic Hamiltonian as part of its self-consistent field (SCF) iteration procedure to obtain the converged ground state electron density, ρ (r). Approaches that directly predict ρ (r) of a structure with high accuracy can accelerate conventional SCF calculations and can also be used in linearly scaling methods such as orbital-free DFT. To this end, we present a procedure to predict the ground state electron density of molecular and periodic three-dimensional systems directly from the atomic structure with a particular emphasis on physical interpretability. In our framework, ρ (r) is modeled using many-body correlation descriptors that accurately capture the effects of local atomic arrangements in the neighborhood of a grid point. Our use of a linear regression scheme to fit to charge density data enables transparent analysis of the relative contributions of various types of local atomic correlations. By systematically including increasingly complex correlations, our model is shown to accurately predict ρ (r) for a variety of chemically and electronically diverse systems — amorphous Ge, Al(001) slab, crystalline Ga 2 O 3 , molecular benzene, and polyethylene. We then demonstrate a symbolic regression-based protocol to construct easily computable, interpretable features from lower-order correlations that significantly improves our electron density predictions with effectively no increase in the computational cost.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2025

Sensitivity of an integrated experiment to uncertainty in the high explosive equations of state

Traditionally, hydrodynamics simulations are performed with a single equation-of-state (EOS) to describe each material. These EOSs typically have a physics-informed functional form with adjustable parameters that are calibrated in order to replicate small-scale data. However, because the calibration data have uncertainty and there are typically inherent degeneracies in fitting the EOS, there are actually multiple EOSs that might be consistent with calibration data. In this work, we perform uncertainty quantification (UQ) for the reactant and product equations of state for the high explosive PBX 9501 to yield an ensemble of EOSs that match the uncertain small-scale calibration data. We then simulate an experiment of an explosively formed penetrator repeatedly with different EOSs to both validate the UQ analysis and determine the effects of EOS uncertainty on the prediction of quantities of interest in the experiment. In general, we find good agreement between the simulation predictions and the experimental measurements, and we identify an EOS variable that contributes most directly to the spread in the predictions as the EOSs are varied.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Precise interpretations of traditional fine-tuning measures

We uncover two precise interpretations of traditional electroweak fine-tuning (FT) measures that were historically missed. (i) a statistical interpretation : the traditional FT measure shows the change in plausibility of a model in which a parameter was exchanged for the 𝑍 boson mass relative to an untuned model in light of the 𝑍 boson mass measurement. (ii) an information-theoretic interpretation : the traditional FT measure shows the exponential of the extra information, measured in nats, relative to an untuned model that you must supply about a parameter in order to fit the 𝑍 mass. We derive the mathematical results underlying these interpretations, and explain them using examples from weak scale supersymmetry. These new interpretations allow us to rigorously define FT in particle physics and beyond, shed fresh light on the status of extensions to the Standard Model and, lastly, allow us to precisely reinterpret historical and recent studies using traditional FT measures.

electroweak symmetry breaking↗