Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Subset selection for regression”

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.

43 records · Page 3

Aeroelastic Model Structure Computation for Envelope Expansion

Structure detection is a procedure for selecting a subset of candidate terms, from a full model description, that best describes the observed output. This is a necessary procedure to compute an efficient system description which may afford greater insight into the functionality of the system or a simpler controller design. Structure computation as a tool for black-box modelling may be of critical importance in the development of robust, parsimonious models for the flight-test community. Moreover, this approach may lead to efficient strategies for rapid envelope expansion which may save significant development time and costs. In this study, a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) technique is investigated for computing efficient model descriptions of nonlinear aeroelastic systems. The LASSO minimises the residual sum of squares by the addition of an l(sub 1) penalty term on the parameter vector of the traditional 2 minimisation problem. Its use for structure detection is a natural extension of this constrained minimisation approach to pseudolinear regression problems which produces some model parameters that are exactly zero and, therefore, yields a parsimonious system description. Applicability of this technique for model structure computation for the F/A-18 Active Aeroelastic Wing using flight test data is shown for several flight conditions (Mach numbers) by identifying a parsimonious system description with a high percent fit for cross-validated data.

Kukreja, Sunil L.↗

Aeroelastic Model Structure Computation for Envelope Expansion

Structure detection is a procedure for selecting a subset of candidate terms, from a full model description, that best describes the observed output. This is a necessary procedure to compute an efficient system description which may afford greater insight into the functionality of the system or a simpler controller design. Structure computation as a tool for black-box modeling may be of critical importance in the development of robust, parsimonious models for the flight-test community. Moreover, this approach may lead to efficient strategies for rapid envelope expansion that may save significant development time and costs. In this study, a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) technique is investigated for computing efficient model descriptions of non-linear aeroelastic systems. The LASSO minimises the residual sum of squares with the addition of an l(Sub 1) penalty term on the parameter vector of the traditional l(sub 2) minimisation problem. Its use for structure detection is a natural extension of this constrained minimisation approach to pseudo-linear regression problems which produces some model parameters that are exactly zero and, therefore, yields a parsimonious system description. Applicability of this technique for model structure computation for the F/A-18 (McDonnell Douglas, now The Boeing Company, Chicago, Illinois) Active Aeroelastic Wing project using flight test data is shown for several flight conditions (Mach numbers) by identifying a parsimonious system description with a high percent fit for cross-validated data.

Kukreja, Sunil L.↗

Using Statistical Multivariable Models to Understand the Relationship Between Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejecta and Magnetic Flux Ropes

In-situ measurements of interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) display a wide range of properties. A distinct subset, "magnetic clouds" (MCs), are readily identifiable by a smooth rotation in an enhanced magnetic field, together with an unusually low solar wind proton temperature. In this study, we analyze Ulysses spacecraft measurements to systematically investigate five possible explanations for why some ICMEs are observed to be MCs and others are not: i) An observational selection effect; that is, all ICMEs do in fact contain MCs, but the trajectory of the spacecraft through the ICME determines whether the MC is actually encountered; ii) interactions of an erupting flux rope (PR) with itself or between neighboring FRs, which produce complex structures in which the coherent magnetic structure has been destroyed; iii) an evolutionary process, such as relaxation to a low plasma-beta state that leads to the formation of an MC; iv) the existence of two (or more) intrinsic initiation mechanisms, some of which produce MCs and some that do not; or v) MCs are just an easily identifiable limit in an otherwise corntinuous spectrum of structures. We apply quantitative statistical models to assess these ideas. In particular, we use the Akaike information criterion (AIC) to rank the candidate models and a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) to uncover any intrinsic clustering of the data. Using a logistic regression, we find that plasma-beta, CME width, and the ratio O(sup 7) / O(sup 6) are the most significant predictor variables for the presence of an MC. Moreover, the propensity for an event to be identified as an MC decreases with heliocentric distance. These results tend to refute ideas ii) and iii). GMM clustering analysis further identifies three distinct groups of ICMEs; two of which match (at the 86% level) with events independently identified as MCs, and a third that matches with non-MCs (68 % overlap), Thus, idea v) is not supported. Choosing between ideas i) and iv) is more challenging, since they may effectively be indistinguishable from one another by a single in-situ spacecraft. We offer some suggestions on how future studies may address this.

Riley, P.↗

Data for Yield from Iowa’s first commercial miscanthus fields: implications of spatial variability for productivity and sustainability beyond research plots

This dataset contains biomass yield measurements and associated vegetation index data collected from commercial Miscanthus × giganteus fields in eastern Iowa during the 2022–2023 growing seasons. The data support the analyses presented in the article: “Yield From Iowa's First Commercial Miscanthus Fields: Implications of Spatial Variability for Productivity and Sustainability Beyond Research Plots.” We collected 105 ground-truth biomass samples from four mature commercial fields (>4 years old) covering 92.81 ha. Samples were taken from 3 m² quadrats that were hand-harvested in alignment with commercial harvest timing. Stem biomass (excluding leaves) was weighed, moisture-corrected, and converted to dry-matter yield expressed in Mg DM ha⁻¹. Sampling locations were selected to capture spatial variability visible in aerial imagery and were recorded using RTK GPS. Each biomass observation was paired with vegetation indices derived from high-resolution PlanetScope satellite imagery (3 m resolution). Images were acquired throughout the growing season, and indices were calculated to evaluate their ability to predict end-of-season biomass yield. Statistical and machine learning approaches were used to identify key predictors, and a linear regression model based on end-of-July Green Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (GNDVI) was developed and evaluated. This repository includes the data used in that modeling workflow. Management practices, economic data, full imagery time series, and additional methodological details are described in the associated publication and are not included here. The dataset consists of three comma-separated value (CSV) files: 1. Combine_Groundtruth_Yield_VI_22_23.csv This file contains ground-truth biomass yield measurements and associated key vegetation index values collected during the 2022 and 2023 growing seasons. Rows: 105 observations Columns: Year — Year of observation (2022 or 2023) Field — Field location identifier Sample_number — Unique sample identifier GNDVI_End_Jul — Green Normalized Difference Vegetation Index calculated at end of July GNDVI_End_Aug — Green Normalized Difference Vegetation Index calculated at end of August NDRE_End_Aug — Normalized Difference Red Edge index calculated at end of August Biomass_Stem_Yield_MgDM/ha — Measured stem biomass yield (megagrams dry matter per hectare) 2. trainData_GNDVI.csv This file contains the subset of observations used to train the predictive relationship between July GNDVI and biomass yield. Rows: 76 observations Columns: Unnamed: 0 — Row index retained from the original data processing workflow GNDVI_End_Jul — GNDVI at end of July Stem_Yield_MgDM/ha — Observed stem biomass yield (Mg DM ha⁻¹) 3. testData_GNDVI.csv This file contains the test dataset used to evaluate model performance. Rows: 29 observations Columns: Unnamed: 0 — Row index retained from the original data processing workflow GNDVI_End_Jul — GNDVI at end of July Predicted_Yield_MgDM/ha — Model-predicted stem biomass yield (Mg DM ha⁻¹) Observed_Yield_MgDM/ha — Measured stem biomass yield (Mg DM ha⁻¹)

Potential yield, yield gap, in-field management, y↗

Guiding the design of oxidation-resistant Fe-based single atom alloy catalysts with insights from configurational space

The high activity and selectivity of Fe-based heterogeneous catalysts toward a variety of reactions that require the breaking of strong bonds are offset in large part by their considerable instability with respect to oxidative deactivation. While it has been shown that the stability of Fe catalysts is considerably enhanced by alloying them with precious metals (even at the single-atom limit), rational design criteria for choosing such secondary metals are still missing. Since oxidative deactivation occurs due to the strong binding of oxygen to Fe and reduction by adsorbed hydrogen mitigates the deactivation, we propose here to use the binding affinity of oxygen and hydrogen adatoms as the basis for rational design. As it would also be beneficial to use cheaper secondary metals, we have scanned over a large subset of 3d–5d mid-to late transition metal single atoms and computationally determined their effect on the oxygen and hydrogen adlayer binding as a function of chemical potential and adsorbate coverage. We further determine the underlying chemical origins that are responsible for these effects and connect them to experimentally tunable quantities. Our results reveal a reliable periodic trend wherein oxygen binding is weakened greatest as one moves right and down the periodic table. Hydrogen binding shows the same trend only at high (but relevant) coverages and otherwise tends to have its binding slightly increased in all systems. Trends with secondary metal coverage are also uncovered and connected to experimentally tunable parameters.

Hensley, Alyssa↗

Systems Analysis of Biomass and Coal Co-firing Power Plants with Deep Carbon Capture Toward Net-zero Emissions

Achieving a net-zero emission economy in the United States requires integrating diverse low-carbon and negative-emission technologies into the existing fossil fuel-dominant power fleet. Potential technologies from the low-carbon portfolio include renewable power, fossil power with carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), and direct air capture (DAC). Renewable power is a clean energy source but has to pair with costly battery storage to provide dispatchable electricity. Fossil power with CCS offers dispatchable electricity yet still relies on DAC to offset residual emissions, even when deploying deep CCS with more than 90% CO2 capture. Coal-biomass co-firing with CCS, a subset of BECCS, is a reliable energy production technology that can be retrofitted from existing electricity generation units (EGUs). Power plant retrofit maximizes the use of the current U.S. coal power fleet without the need for large-scale deployment of new renewable power, battery storage, or DAC. Retrofitting coal-biomass co-firing with deep CCS in EGUs is a promising option, but not a universal solution. Biomass co-firing at a power plant introduces economic challenges and indirectly poses pressure on land and water resources. Meanwhile, retrofitting deep CCS affects plant efficiency and raises electricity generation costs. Overall, the technical feasibility and economic viability of plant retrofits vary across EGUs, as they are contingent upon the regional availability of biomass, unit-specific characteristics, site-specific fuel supply costs, and adjacent CO2 storage potential. Government incentives like 45Q can improve the retrofit viability, though the impact requires further quantification. A comprehensive analysis at the unit level is essential to address the question regarding the fate of the U.S. coal-fired electricity generation fleet toward the net-zero emission goal. This study conducts a systematic techno-economic-environmental assessment of EGUs to identify the viability of biomass co-firing and deep CCS retrofits in the U.S. coal-fired power fleet. Specifically, it characterizes the techno-economic performance of deep carbon capture, estimates life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and conducts a fleet-level assessment on retrofit viability. The key objectives are (1) to estimate the unit-specific performance and retrofitted cost under various biomass co-firing levels and CO2 capture rates; (2) to determine the possibility of reaching net-zero emission at the fleet level; (3) to quantify the cumulative capacities that are suitable for plant retrofits under current and future biomass supply scenarios; and (4) to improve the understanding of policy impacts on such retrofits to help the power sector’s transition to a net-zero economy. Techno-economic Model of Deep Carbon Capture. This study develops the performance and economic models for Monoethanolamine-based post-combustion CO2 capture at 95–99% capture rates. The process is simulated in Aspen Plus, analyzing the performance of carbon capture technology by varying the plant sizes, solvent lean loading, CO2 concentrations, and flue gas inlet temperature. Based on the key inputs and output parameters of CO2 capture, a reduced-order performance model of deep carbon capture is formulated. In addition, an engineering-economic model integrating the performance metrics is developed to estimate the capital as well as operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Capital cost estimations follow the framework of the Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM) and incorporate data regressions from three technical reports by IECM, the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The O&M cost estimation utilizes the actual inventory consumption rate and labor requirements. Both performance and cost models are embedded into IECM v13.0-beta, a fossil-fuel power plant modeling tool. Life Cycle Assessment of Power Plants. This study estimates the GHG emissions of power plants through life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA scope includes fuel supply, combustion-based power generation, and CO2 transport and storage. The fuel-based life cycle module is designed following the framework of the NETL Unit Process Library and CO2U LCA Guidance Toolkit. The module is then incorporated into IECM v13.0-beta. The process-based LCA is applied to estimate the GHG emissions of coal and biomass supply, coal- and coal-biomass co-firing power plant operation, as well as CO2 pipeline transport and geographical sequestration. An uncertainty analysis is conducted to quantify the variability and uncertainty associated with the LCA using the Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) method. Fleet-level Assessment. This study evaluates the technical and economic feasibility of selected coal-fired EGUs, examines the role of tax credits in retrofit viability, and assesses the competitiveness of retrofitted units against other low-carbon options. Unit screening identifies EGUs for the study, focusing on new, efficient baseload units with air pollution controls. The power plant databases are then established to organize unit-specific information on performance and operating conditions from the relevant public databases. Biomass for co-firing retrofits is selected based on home and neighboring county availability, ensuring sustained operation with at least a 5% co-firing level. The CO2 storage site is determined by state-level storage potential, with ArcGIS Pro and NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model used to identify the optimal balance between the nearest transport distances and affordable storage costs. The latest IECM v13.0-beta is then employed to configure and evaluate the eligible EGUs with or without the deployment of deep CCS and biomass co-firing. A supply curve is established to illustrate the cumulative installed capacity suitable for retrofits at different cost levels. A sensitivity analysis on tax credits for carbon sequestration is performed. Finally, a unit-level cost comparison is conducted among retrofitted plants, renewable power with battery storage, and abated fossil fuels with DAC. Expected Results. This study evaluates the technical, economic, and environmental metrics of each EGU across an array of CO2 capture rates and biomass co-firing level scenarios. Unit-level comparisons will identify critical factors influencing technical performance. The supply curves with and without tax incentives will provide insights into the impact of tax credits on biomass co-firing and CCS deployment. The cost comparisons with renewables and DAC-retrofit will assess the competitiveness of the retrofitted units. Life cycle emissions from each unit will be assessed to identify the scenarios under which net-zero emissions can be achieved. These analyses are expected to determine the total coal-fired capacity suitable for serving as a low-carbon energy source with or without tax incentives. The study results are novel in identifying optimal unit-specific strategies for producing carbon-neutral power, whether through retrofitting EGUs with deep CCS, biomass co-firing, DAC, or installing renewable power with battery. The findings will provide insight into nationwide efforts to ensure reliable, affordable, and low-carbon electricity. It also will inform investment decisions and policies in the deployment of deep carbon capture and negative emission technologies for a net-zero energy future.

Biomass Co-firing↗

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2026 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for atomistic materials modeling

This release contains data and parameters of HydraGNN-based graph foundation models trained as a result of the work published in the pre-print "Exascale Multi-Task Graph Foundation Models for Imbalanced, Multi-Fidelity Atomistic Data" by M. Lupo Pasini et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15380). We jointly train on 16 open first-principles datasets (544+ million structures covering 85+ elements) using a multi-task architecture with per-dataset heads and a scalable ADIOS2/DDStore data pipeline. On Frontier, we execute six large-scale DeepHyper hyperparameter optimization campaigns in FP64 and promote the top-performing message-passing models to sustained 2,048-node training, yielding a PaiNN-based lead model. The version of HydraGNN used to generate the outputs provided in this release is HydraGNN v5.0 (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0) The list of datasets used for the training of the graph foundation model is the following: 1) Alexandria [1] 2) ANI1x [2] 3) MPTrj [3] 4) Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [4] 5) Open Catalyst 2022 (OC22) [5] 6) Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) [6] 7) Open Direct ir Capture 2023 (ODAC23) [7] 8) Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) [8] 9) Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) [9] 10) OMol25-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with zero total charge) 11) OMol25-non-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with non-zero total charge) 12) Open Polymers 2026 (OPoly2026) [10] 13) Nabla2DFT [11] 14) QCML [12] 15) QM7X [reference 13] 16) transition1x [14] Dataset references: [1] J. Schmidt et al., “A dataset of 175k stable and metastable materials calculated with the PBEsol and SCAN functionals,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 64, 2022. [2] J. S. Smith et al., “The ANI-1ccx and ANI-1x data sets, coupled-cluster and density functional theory properties for molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, p. 134, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0473-z [3] A. Jain et al., “Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,” APL Materials, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 011002, 07 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 [4] L. Chanussot et al., “Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 6059–6072, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 [5] K. Tran et al., “Open catalyst 2022 (oc22) dataset and challenges for oxidation electrocatalysts,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3066–3084, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.2c05426 [6] S. J. Sahoo et al., “The open catalyst 2025 (oc25) dataset and models for solid-liquid interfaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17862, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17862 [7] A. Sriram et al., “The open DAC 2023 dataset and challenges for sorbent discovery in direct air capture,” ACS Central Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 923–941, 2024. [8] L. Barroso-Luque et al., “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771 [9] D. S. Levine et al., “The open molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, evaluations, and models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08762 [10] D. S. Levine et al., The open polymers 2026 (OPoly26) dataset and evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23117, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23117 [11] K. Khrabrov et al., “Nabla2dft: A universal quantum chemistry dataset of drug-like molecules and a benchmark for neural network potentials,” in NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=ElUrNM9U8c [12] S. Ganscha et al., “The QCML dataset, quantum chemistry reference data from 33.5M DFT and 14.7B semi-empirical calculations,” Scientific Data, vol. 12, p. 406, 2025. [13] J. Hoja et al., “QM7-X, a comprehensive dataset of quantum-mechanical properties spanning the chemical space of small organic molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 8, p. 43, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00812-2 [14] M. Schreiner et al., “Transition1x - a dataset for building generalizable reactive machine learning potentials,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 779, 2022. The folder "datasets_ADIOS2_format" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "datasets_ADIOS2_format" directory contains 2 sub-directories, one for the version "v1" of the datasets and one for the version "v2" of the datasets. The version "v1" of the datasets provides values of the total energy as they are extracted from the original data as it was released by the respective institutions. The version "v2" of the datasets provides values of the energy that have been realigned. The realignment was performed by training a linear regression model that predicts the total energy as a function of the chemical composition of the atomistic structure, and then subtract such prediction from the original value of the total energy. Both folders "v1" and "v2" contain 16 sub-directories, each corresponding to an ADIOS2-formatted dataset The folder "DeepHyper-results" contains the configurational files and model's parameters for all the 186 HPO trials that were successfully completed by the scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) runs on Frontier. The content of the folder "DeepHyper-results" I structured as follows: 1) task-list.txt: list of mpnn name, jobid, and deephyper task id 2) gfm_${MPNN}_${JOBID}_0.${TASKID}: run directory with checkpoint files 3) gfm_${MPNN}: deephyper summary directory (*.csv) for each specific MPNN type 4) deephyper-experiment-${JOBID}: output and error logs for each job The file "deephyper-sorted.csv" contains the details of each HydraGNN model built and tested by HPO, obtained by merging the (*.csv) filed from each HPO run executed. Out of all the HPO trials, we selected 10 to continue the training of the respective HydraGNN models. Due to limited computational budget available in the LRN070 allocation we could not complete the training till convergence for all these 10 selected models. The folder "models" contains multiple sub-folders, one per each HydraGNN model trained. Each model sub-folder contains the parameters of each HydraGNN model, with multiple checkpoint-restarts. The list of sub-folders are as follows: 1) multidataset_hpo-BEST1-fp64 2) multidataset_hpo-BEST2-fp64 3) multidataset_hpo-BEST3-fp64 4) multidataset_hpo-BEST4-fp64 5) multidataset_hpo-BEST5-fp64 6) multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64 7) multidataset_hpo-BEST7-fp64 8) multidataset_hpo-BEST8-fp64 9) multidataset_hpo-BEST9-fp64 10) multidataset_hpo-BEST10-fp64 Within each one of these folders, additional auxiliary log files are provided with descriptions about how the training proceeded. The lead PaiNN-model is contained inside "multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64". The file "mlp_branch_weights" contains the parameters of the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) used to reconcile the predictions of the 16 output decoding heads of the HydragNN architectures. The MLP takes in input the chemical composition of the atomistic structure and predicts averaging weights to linearly mix the predictions of each output decoding head toward consolidating them into a single one. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 1.1 billion atomistic structures randomly generated. Each structures is associated with energy and forces predicted with the lead-PaiNN model combined with the MLP model for reconciliation of the multi-branch predictions generated by the 16 output decoding heads. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 9,300 (*.tar.gz) subdirectories, one per Frontier compute node used to execute the inference at exascale. Once uncompressed, each (*.tar.gz) subdirectory contains an ADIOS2 (*.bp) file container, where each atomistic structure is stored as a PyTorch-Geometric Data object. The file "export_dataset_environment_variables.sh" contains the environment variables that need to be set before running the HydraGNN code to reproduce the results provided in this dataset release. The code that can be used to load the ADIOS2 files, load HydraGNN models, and run inference is available at: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗