Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Integral Benchmarks”

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 595 records · Page 33
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

A New Era of Nuclear Criticality Experiments: The First 10 Years of Godiva IV Operations at NCERC

The work presented in this paper focuses on the first 10 years (2011–2020) of Godiva IV operations at the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC). Godiva IV is a fast burst critical assembly constructed of approximately 65 kg of highly enriched uranium fuel alloyed with 1.5% molybdenum for strength. Godiva is one of the last such critical assemblies in the United States and can be used for studies of super-prompt-critical behavior as well as irradiations and demonstrations. An overview of the startup of Godiva IV at NCERC is given followed by a summary of the experiments performed utilizing Godiva IV over the first 10 years of operation at NCERC.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2019

Spectral Galerkin solver for intense beam Vlasov equilibria in nonlinear constant focusing channels

Here a numerical method is described for producing stationary solutions of the Vlasov-Poisson system describing a relativistic charged-particle beam in a constant focusing accelerator channel, confined transversely by a general (linear or nonlinear) focusing potential. The method utilizes a variant of the spectral Galerkin algorithm to solve a nonlinear partial differential equation (PDE) in two degrees of freedom for the beam space charge potential in equilibrium. Numerical convergence with an increasing number of computed spectral modes is investigated for several benchmark problems. Preservation of the stationary phase space density is verified using a strongly nonlinear focusing channel based on the Integrable Optics Test Accelerator at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-00: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG # 5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

IRIS-MASH: Efficient Multi-device Asynchronous Multi-Stream Heterogeneous Computing

In the rapidly evolving field of high-performance computing (HPC), effectively leveraging heterogeneous devices through asynchronous task programming is paramount. This paper presents a robust asynchronous task programming model tailored for a multi-device, multi-stream execution environment that incorporates a diverse array of heterogeneous computing units, including GPUs from various vendors and other accelerators. Current state-of-the-art task programming models provide methodologies to support asynchronous task executions, but they typically handle homogeneous devices using native programming languages, while support for heterogeneous devices is limited to frameworks like OpenCL. This gap presents significant challenges in abstracting heterogeneous devices to harness their true asynchronous capabilities effectively using their native programming languages. By implementing asynchronous task execution, our model significantly boosts the performance of tiled algorithm task graphs through overlapping data transfers with computation and enabling the simultaneous execution of multiple kernels. We integrate this approach into a heterogeneous Intelligent Runtime System (IRIS) and assess its performance using a suite of tiled algorithm benchmarks from the heterogeneous math kernels library (MatRIS) based on IRIS. Experimental results demonstrate a performance improvement ranging from 1.6 × to 2 × over IRIS without asynchronous support, and a notable 22% performance enhancement compared to established runtime systems such as StarPU and PaRSEC. This approach significantly improves computation efficiency of HPC workflows and provides a solid base for future exploration and development in the area of asynchronous task programming in heterogeneous systems.

Miniskar, Narasinga Rao [ORNL] (ORCID:000000018259↗
DOE OSTI2021

Pulse-burst spontaneous Raman thermometry of unsteady wave phenomena in a shock tube

A high-speed temperature diagnostic based on spontaneous Raman scattering (SRS) was demonstrated using a pulse-burst laser. The technique was first benchmarked in near-adiabatic H 2 -air flames at a data-acquisition rate of 5 kHz using an integrated pulse energy of 1.0 J per realization. Both the measurement precision and accuracy in the flame were within 3% of adiabatic predictions. Furthermore, this technique was then evaluated in a challenging free-piston shock tube environment operated at a shock Mach number of 3.5. SRS thermometry resolved the temperature in post-incident and post-reflected shock flows at a repetition rate of 3 kHz and clearly showed cooling associated with driver expansion waves. Collectively, this Letter represents a major advancement for SRS in impulsive facilities, which had previously been limited to steady state regions or single-shot acquisition.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Benchmark Tracking System for Performance Monitoring

Benchmarking is essential for high-performance software development, particularly for monitoring performance across code iterations. This project focused on enhancing the benchmarking process for Lamellar, an asynchronous runtime for High-Performance Computing (HPC) systems developed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Prior to this work, benchmark results were difficult to track and compare across code versions, presenting significant challenges in identifying performance regressions and long-term trends. The primary objective was to establish a systematic, reproducible approach for measuring performance and detecting regressions following code commits. Our methodology involved three key components: standardizing benchmark outputs, implementing data versioning, and developing analysis tools. We standardized the benchmark output format to JSON Line records containing specific fields (execution time, hardware specifications, and environmental variables). To address data management challenges, we evaluated several options and eventually chose a git repository dedicated to benchmark data. We developed a suite of Python tools that processed benchmark results, enriched them with metadata, and facilitated search in the repository. The resulting system enables more efficient filtering and comparison of performance metrics across commit histories, hardware configurations, and benchmark variants through a unified query interface. Our implementation reduces computational overhead by first checking for existing results through configuration matching before initiating new benchmark runs, thereby conserving resources. The system has been validated by Lamellar developers. It organizes results by benchmark type and build configurations for efficient retrieval. Future developments include a planned Large Language Model interface for predicting benchmark performance, incorporating the criterion package for statistical analysis, which will enable automated detection of statistically significant performance changes, and integration with continuous integration pipelines. Despite these enhancements being reserved for future work, this project has successfully provided the Lamellar development team with a framework for maintaining consistent performance standards and identifying optimization opportunities across workloads and hardware environments.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Enabling Long-range Exploration in Minimization of Multimodal Functions

We consider the problem of minimizing multi-modal loss functions with a large number of local optima. Since the local gradient points to the direction of the steepest slope in an infinitesimal neighborhood, an optimizer guided by the local gradient is often trapped in a local minimum. To address this issue, we develop a novel nonlocal gradient to skip small local minima by capturing major structures of the loss’s landscape in black-box optimization. The nonlocal gradient is defined by a directional Gaussian smoothing (DGS) approach. The key idea of DGS is to conducts 1D long-range exploration with a large smoothing radius along d orthogonal directions in Rd, each of which defines a nonlocal directional derivative as a 1D integral. Such long-range exploration enables the nonlocal gradient to skip small local minima. The d directional derivatives are then assembled to form the nonlocal gradient. We use the Gauss-Hermite quadrature rule to approximate the d 1D integrals to obtain an accurate estimator. The superior performance of our method is demonstrated in three sets of examples, including benchmark functions for global optimization, and two real-world scientific problems.

Zhang, Jiaxin↗
DOE OSTI2016

Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program: Evaluation of Localized Cable Test Methods for Nuclear Power Plant Cable Aging Management Programs

This Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) milestone report describes progress to date on the investigation of nondestructive test (NDE) methods focusing particularly on local measurements that provide key indicators of cable aging and damage. The work includes a review of relevant literature as well as hands-on experimental verification of inspection capabilities. As NPPs consider applying for second, or subsequent, license renewal (SLR) to extend their operating period from 60 years to 80 years, it important to understand how the materials installed in plant systems and components will age during that time and develop aging management programs (AMPs) to assure continued safe operation under normal and design basis events (DBE). Normal component and system tests typically confirm the cables can perform their normal operational function. The focus of the cable test program is directed toward the more demanding challenge of assuring the cable function under accident or DBE. Most utilities already have a program associated with their first life extension from 40 to 60 years. Regrettably, there is neither a clear guideline nor a single NDE that can assure cable function and integrity for all cables. Thankfully, however, practical implementation of a broad range of tests allows utilities to develop a practical program that assures cable function to a high degree. The industry has adopted 50% elongation at break (EAB) relative to the un-aged cable condition as the acceptability standard. All tests are benchmarked against the cable EAB test. EAB is a destructive test so the test programs must apply an array of other NDE tests to assure or infer the overall set of cable’s system integrity. These cable NDE programs vary in rigor and methodology. As the industry gains experience with the efficacy of these programs, it is expected that implementation practice will converge to a more common approach. This report addresses the range of local NDE cable tests that are or could be practically implemented in a field test situation. These tests include: visual, infrared thermography, interdigital capacitance, indenter, relaxation time indenter, dynamic mechanical analyzer, infrared/near-infrared spectrometry, ultrasound, and distributed fiber optic temperature measurement.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

New Pulsed Neutron Die-Away Experiments in Light Water

Thermal neutron scattering laws are important data for many nuclear science and engineering applications, especially criticality safety. Recently, pulsed-neutron die-away experiments have been proposed and used as an experiment to validate thermal neutron scattering laws. These experiments involve irradiating a target moderating material with pulses of neutrons from a neutron generator. The physics of thermal scattering greatly affect how the neutron population in the target exponentially decays via absorption and leakage. Herein, we present experimental results from a new pulsed-neutron die-away experiment of light water that was performed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The experiments were done with cylindrical targets of varying dimensions to modulate the experiment’s sensitivity to thermal scattering and to absorption. We compare the measured integral parameter of the experiment to simulations with MCNP6.2 ® and to past experiments in literature. The integral parameters that were more sensitive to TSLs showed a larger bias. This validation study is known to have errors because the model of the experiment lacks key features about the detectors and neutron generator. These features will be included in the final benchmark evaluation of the experiment which will be submitted to the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2024

Automated electrosynthesis reaction mining with multimodal large language models (MLLMs)

Leveraging the chemical data available in legacy formats such as publications and patents is a significant challenge for the community. Automated reaction mining offers a promising solution to unleash this knowledge into a learnable digital form and therefore help expedite materials and reaction discovery. However, existing reaction mining toolkits are limited to single input modalities (text or images) and cannot effectively integrate heterogeneous data that is scattered across text, tables, and figures. In this work, we go beyond single input modalities and explore multimodal large language models (MLLMs) for the analysis of diverse data inputs for automated electrosynthesis reaction mining. We compiled a test dataset of 65 articles (MERMES-T24 set) and employed it to benchmark five prominent MLLMs against two critical tasks: (i) reaction diagram parsing and (ii) resolving cross-modality data interdependencies. The frontrunner MLLM achieved ≥96% accuracy in both tasks, with the strategic integration of single-shot visual prompts and image pre-processing techniques. We integrate this capability into a toolkit named MERMES (multimodal reaction mining pipeline for electrosynthesis). Our toolkit functions as an end-to-end MLLM-powered pipeline that integrates article retrieval, information extraction and multimodal analysis for streamlining and automating knowledge extraction. This work lays the groundwork for the increased utilization of MLLMs to accelerate the digitization of chemistry knowledge for data-driven research.

Leong, Shi Xuan↗
DOE OSTI2015

Differential and integral cross sections in OH(X) + Xe collisions

Differential cross sections (DCSs) for inelastic collisions of OH(X) with Xe have been measured at a collision energy of 483 cm{sup −1}. The hydroxyl (OH) radicals were initially prepared in the X{sup 2}Π{sub 3/2} (v = 0, j = 1.5, f) level using the hexapole electric field selection method. Products were detected state-selectively by [2 + 1] resonance-enhanced multiphoton ionization of OH, combined with velocity-map imaging. Integral cross sections in OH(X) + Xe at a collision energy of 490 cm{sup −1} were also measured by laser-induced fluorescence. The results are compared with exact close-coupling quantum mechanical scattering calculations on the only available ab initio potential energy surface (PES). The agreement between experimental and theoretical results is generally very satisfactory. This highlights the ability of such measurements to test the available PES for such a benchmark open-shell system. The agreement between experiment and theory for DCSs is less satisfactory at low scattering angles, and possible reasons for this disagreement are discussed. Finally, theoretical calculations of OH(X) + He DCSs have been obtained at various collision energies and are compared with those of OH(X) + Xe. The role of the reduced mass in the DCSs and partial cross sections is also examined.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2024

40 Ca transverse response function from coupled-cluster theory

Here, we present calculations of the 40 Ca transverse response function obtained from coupled-cluster theory used in conjunction with the Lorentz integral transform method. We employ nuclear forces derived at next-to-next-to leading order in chiral effective field theory with and without Δ degrees of freedom. We first benchmark this approach on the 4 He nucleus and compare both the transverse sum rule and the response function to earlier calculations based on different methods. As expected from the power counting of the chiral expansion of electromagnetic currents and from previous studies, our results retaining only one-body term underestimate the experimental data for 4 He by about 20%. However, when the method is applied to 40 Ca at the same order of the expansion, response functions do not lack strength and agree well with the world electron scattering data. We discuss various sources of theoretical uncertainties and comment on the comparison of our results with the available experiments.

39 ≤ A ≤ 58↗
DOE OSTI2026

Integrating very-high-resolution imagery, Sentinel-2 time-series data, and machine learning to map shrub fractional abundance across arid and semi-arid ecosystems in China

Shrub fractional abundance (SFA), the proportion of shrub cover per unit area, serves as a critical indicator of environmental aridity and ecosystem health in arid and semi-arid regions, particularly across the Mongolian steppe. However, large-scale SFA mapping in Mongolian steppe ecosystems remains challenging due to the small crown size of shrubs, their sparse distribution, and spectral overlap with coexisting low vegetation (e.g., grasses and herbs), which hinders accurate detection using coarser-resolution satellite data or traditional field surveys. To address these challenges, we developed a two-step approach that integrates very-high-resolution (VHR) imagery, time-series Sentinel-2 data, and deep learning techniques. First, we generated high-accuracy benchmark maps of individual shrub crowns from 0.5 m VHR imagery by combining manual segmentation with a hybrid deep learning framework (Dino V2 and convolutional neural networks). Second, we used these shrub crown maps as training data to build an XGBoost model for predicting SFA from 20 m Sentinel-2 time-series data, leveraging phenological information to improve estimation. We validated our approach across 70 sites (1km 2 each) in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, which is representative of Mongolian steppe ecosystems. From VHR imagery, we mapped 1.31 million shrub crowns with an accuracy of R 2 = 0.92. Scaling up with Sentinel-2 data yielded regional SFA maps with an R 2 = 0.60. Further SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis on the developed XGBoost model revealed that phenological metrics (particularly observations in early-May, mid-July, and late-September), which distinguish shrub phenology from that of other land cover types (e.g., grasses and bare soil), were the most influential predictors of SFA. Finally, our regional SFA maps uncovered unimodal relationships between shrub distribution and climate variables, peaking at mean annual minimum temperatures near 0 °C and annual precipitation around 200 mm. Collectively, these findings demonstrate how the integration of multi-source remote sensing and machine learning can overcome historical limitations in SFA mapping, enabling accurate, spatially continuous assessments across vast Inner-Mongolian steppe ecosystems. Our framework has the potential to be applied to other steppe ecosystems and dryland ecosystems across the Mongolian steppe and beyond, offering a foundation for improved monitoring and ecological impact assessments in the face of global climate changes.

Arid and semi-arid landscapes↗
DOE OSTI2014

Characterization of the benchmark binary NLTT 33370 {sup ,}

We confirm the binary nature of the nearby, very low mass (VLM) system NLTT 33370 with adaptive optics imaging and present resolved near-infrared photometry and integrated light optical and near-infrared spectroscopy to characterize the system. VLT-NaCo and LBTI-LMIRCam images show significant orbital motion between 2013 February and 2013 April. Optical spectra reveal weak, gravity-sensitive alkali lines and strong lithium 6708 Å absorption that indicate the system is younger than field age. VLT-SINFONI near-IR spectra also show weak, gravity-sensitive features and spectral morphology that is consistent with other young VLM dwarfs. We combine the constraints from all age diagnostics to estimate a system age of ∼30-200 Myr. The 1.2-4.7 μm spectral energy distribution of the components point toward T {sub eff} = 3200 ± 500 K and T {sub eff} = 3100 ± 500 K for NLTT 33370 A and B, respectively. The observed spectra, derived temperatures, and estimated age combine to constrain the component spectral types to the range M6-M8. Evolutionary models predict masses of 97{sub −48}{sup +41} M{sub Jup} and 91{sub −44}{sup +41} M{sub Jup} from the estimated luminosities of the components. KPNO-Phoenix spectra allow us to estimate the systemic radial velocity of the binary. The Galactic kinematics of NLTT 33370AB are broadly consistent with other young stars in the solar neighborhood. However, definitive membership in a young, kinematic group cannot be assigned at this time and further follow-up observations are necessary to fully constrain the system's kinematics. The proximity, age, and late-spectral type of this binary make it very novel and an ideal target for rapid, complete orbit determination. The system is one of only a few model calibration benchmarks at young ages and VLMs.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗