Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Benchmarking”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Uniformly Ordered Binary Decision Algorithm for Benchmark Experiment Correlations in Whisper Validation

When performing a validation exercise for determining the upper subcritical limit of a nuclear criticality safety application, an analyst should select and perform a statistical analysis on a population of benchmark experiments that are neutronically similar to the application. The size of this population should be sufficiently large such that the statistical analysis has a high degree of confidence that the bias plus bias uncertainty (calculational margin) has been accurately quantified. A complication arises because many benchmark experiments share common components, leading to correlations in their measured effective multiplication factors. Correlations between benchmark experiments within the population reduces its predictive power. This motivates the need for methods that consider benchmark experiment correlations and ensure adequate statistical significance of results. The Whisper code is a statistical analysis pack- age that incorporates nuclear data sensitivity coefficients from MCNP to assess benchmark experiment similarity and then performs an extreme-value analysis to estimate the bias plus bias uncertainty. The original methodology in Whisper does not consider the effect of benchmark experiment correlations when making this estimation, and this summary proposes the uniformly ordered binary decision algorithm to address this shortcoming. The original methodology in Whisper computes similarity coefficients ck for an application compared to all benchmark experiments in its library and develops weighting factors for a selected population proportional to the ck values. The methodology can be interpreted as statistically emulating a validation exercise for a particular application where the weighting factors may be viewed as the likelihood that an analyst would include a particular benchmark experiment within the population. The effective sample size of the population is the expected or mean number of benchmark experiments in the population. The uniformly ordered binary decision algorithm identifies clusters of correlated benchmark experiments within the population and then computes adjusted weighting factors based on the magnitude of the correlation coefficients within the cluster to compute a reduced effective sample size accounting for the lower information content because of correlations. Benchmark experiments within the cluster are ordered randomly with equal probability and probabilistic decisions are made as to whether a benchmark. experiment within the cluster should treated as redundant with a previous one; if two redundant benchmark experiments are included, then the conservative worst case bias plus bias uncertainty is used and the pair is counted as a single benchmark experiment in the population. Results are provided for HEU solutions in a research version of the Whisper software using benchmark experiment correlations provided by DICE, the Database for the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP). These show that there can be a significant increase in the bias plus bias uncertainty because the effective sample size is reduced, and therefore the algorithm, needing to meet sample size requirements, expands the benchmark experiment population by accepting less similar benchmark experiments that would have otherwise not been included.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmarks, With Minimum Sustainable Price Analysis: Q1 2023

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) aims to accelerate the advancement and deployment of solar technology in support of an equitable transition to a decarbonized economy no later than 2050, starting with a decarbonized power sector by 2035. Its approach to achieving this goal includes driving innovations in technology, hardware, and soft cost reductions to make solar affordable and accessible for all. As part of this effort, SETO must track solar cost trends so it can focus its research and development (R&D) on the highest-impact activities. The benchmarks in this report are bottom-up cost estimates of all major inputs to PV and energy storage system installations. Bottom-up costs are based on national averages and do not necessarily represent typical costs in all local markets. Like last year's report, this year's report includes two distinct sets of benchmarks: minimum sustainable price (MSP) benchmarks and modeled market price (MMP) benchmarks. MSP benchmarks can be interpreted as the minimum price a company needs to charge to remain financially solvent in the long term based on the minimum sustainable prices of all inputs including minimum sustainable profit margins. MMP benchmarks can be interpreted as the actual cash sales price a company charges in the given benchmark period. These simplified estimates are useful for tracking technological progress, but they do not reflect all experiences. In fact, no individual estimate under any approach can reflect the diversity of the PV and storage manufacturing and installation industries. Our residential MMP benchmark ($2.90 per watt direct current [Wdc]) is 24% higher than the MSP benchmark ($2.34/Wdc) and 9% lower than our MMP benchmark ($3.18/Wdc) from Q1 2022 in 2022 U.S. dollars (USD). For community solar, our MMP benchmark ($1.75/Wdc) is 18% higher than our MSP benchmark ($1.49/Wdc). Our Q1 2022 benchmark report has no community solar system for comparison. For utility-scale systems with one-axis tracking, our MMP benchmark ($1.17/Wdc) is 22% higher than our MSP benchmark ($0.96/Wdc) and 10% higher than its counterpart ($1.07/Wdc) in Q1 2022 in 2022 USD.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

AI Benchmark Democratization and Carpentry

Benchmarks are a cornerstone of modern machine learning, enabling reproducibility, comparison, and scientific progress. However, AI benchmarks are increasingly complex, requiring dynamic, AI-focused workflows. Rapid evolution in model architectures, scale, datasets, and deployment contexts makes evaluation a moving target. Large language models often memorize static benchmarks, causing a gap between benchmark results and real-world performance. Beyond traditional static benchmarks, continuous adaptive benchmarking frameworks are needed to align scientific assessment with deployment risks. This calls for skills and education in AI Benchmark Carpentry. From our experience with MLCommons, educational initiatives, and programs like the DOE's Trillion Parameter Consortium, key barriers include high resource demands, limited access to specialized hardware, lack of benchmark design expertise, and uncertainty in relating results to application domains. Current benchmarks often emphasize peak performance on top-tier hardware, offering limited guidance for diverse, real-world scenarios. Benchmarking must become dynamic, incorporating evolving models, updated data, and heterogeneous platforms while maintaining transparency, reproducibility, and interpretability. Democratization requires both technical innovation and systematic education across levels, building sustained expertise in benchmark design and use. Benchmarks should support application-relevant comparisons, enabling informed, context-sensitive decisions. Dynamic, inclusive benchmarking will ensure evaluation keeps pace with AI evolution and supports responsible, reproducible, and accessible AI deployment. Community efforts can provide a foundation for AI Benchmark Carpentry.

von Laszewski, Gregor [Virginia U.]↗
DOE OSTI2018

Policy, Permit, Perform: Using City Benchmarking Data and Building Construction Permit History to Identify Energy Performance Improvements

The City of Portland (City) and Multnomah County 2015 Climate Action Plan targets a 40 percent reduction in carbon emissions below 1990 levels by 2030. To reach this goal, the plan includes a key objective to reduce the total energy use of existing buildings by 25 percent. Buildings are responsible for one-half of carbon emissions in Portland, Oregon, U.S., and improving their performance is critical to achieving the City’s climate goals. As part of its climate action planning, the City passed an ordinance on April 22, 2015, requiring commercial buildings 20,000 ft2 and larger to benchmark and disclose annual energy performance metrics through ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager® (ESPM), including greenhouse gas emissions, building energy use intensity (EUI) and ENERGY STAR scores. Twenty-five cities in the U.S. have adopted similar policies requiring energy benchmarking. These policies are generating a treasure trove of data about the drivers of building performance, but practitioners are only beginning to link benchmarking data to other datasets to produce actionable insight into improving building performance. In 2016, the City received a financial assistance award from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) through the Cities Leading through Energy Analysis and Planning project (Award Number DE-0007737). Portland’s project evaluated the application of the DOE Building Energy Asset Score Tool and rating system developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to commercial buildings that report to the City. The City used building construction permit history to develop Asset Scores for a set of office buildings that reported energy performance for 2015 – the first year the City mandated energy benchmarking and reporting for commercial buildings 50,000 ft2 and larger. The primary project objective was to link energy benchmarking data and commercial building permit data to analyze commercial buildings systems that present the best, specific opportunities to improve energy performance. Integrating these datasets from two City departments, the Bureau of Development Services and the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, could expand Portland’s use of analytics to inform climate policy decisions and strategic targeting of financial incentives for building owners and managers who are best positioned to improve the performance of their buildings. The project began with the commercial benchmarking data received for 340 commercial buildings that submitted calendar year 2015 energy reports. The City retained Research Into Action and Energy 350 (RIA team) to evaluate this self-reported benchmarking data. Based on a survey of 53 building managers, the RIA team found that most respondents used the City’s compliance tools, including a How-to Guide and Help Desk, and found access to utility data to be straightforward. However, almost one-third of the respondents encountered challenges when estimating the gross floor area (GFA), and some experienced confusion regarding the input of property use types and details into ESPM. Based on the RIA team’s recommendations, the City refined its How-to Guide, created online answers to frequently asked questions, and hosted office hour sessions to help building managers accurately characterize their building’s physical characteristics and operations in ESPM. Concurrently with the RIA team’s evaluation, the City worked with PNNL to estimate DOE Asset Score Preview (Preview) scores for 181 of the 340 commercial buildings that submitted ESPM reports to the City. Asset Score Tool is a web-based tool developed by PNNL for DOE to evaluate and rate the as-built energy efficiency of a building. Asset Score Tool’s full analysis capability runs a detailed energy model based on building geometry, age, envelope, lighting and mechanical systems using standard operating assumptions to give the building a score, similar to a miles per gallon rating for a car. Preview, a simplified deployment of the full Asset Score Tool, provides a preliminary score range using only seven data points, six of which are readily available in the ESPM benchmarking data. Analysis of the combined Preview scores and the operational ESPM scores identified buildings with a high potential for energy improvements through either retro-commissioning and retuning of existing operations or capital investments into building systems. The City contracted Whole Building Solutions (WBS) to mine building permit history and develop full Asset Scores for a subset of 26 office buildings that were eligible for both ENERGY STAR scores and Asset Scores. WBS researched permits and building plans to identify mechanical, lighting and envelope systems and other building characteristics necessary to complete Asset Scores. This historical data was recorded using the web-based Asset Score Tool, which evaluates the as designed energy efficiency of existing buildings. Much of this City information was available online after 2010; however, WBS had to search through microfiche files and the City’s database to obtain permit and plan history prior to 2010. Although building geometry, mechanical system type and basic envelope information was consistently identifiable, WBS found permit data gaps that prevented complete and accurate Asset Scores for most of the office buildings. If the City decides to develop Asset Scores based on building permit information in the future, WBS recommended requiring lighting plans, control diagrams and as-built drawings that reflect how the buildings are actually constructed. In addition, WBS recommended uploading plans and permits from microfiche storage into a more comprehensive, searchable database consistent with the City’s current online permit information. To identify the actual lighting types, WBS and City staff conducted site visits of all 26 office buildings. As part of managing the flow of ESPM and Asset Score data for the project, Earth Advantage, a sub-recipient of the Cities-LEAP award, created a DOE Standard Energy Efficiency Data (SEED) (USDOE 2018) instance for the City and used Asset Score’s Application Programming Interface (API) (Asset Score 2018) capabilities to develop two new features in the SEED Platform™: (1) automated Asset Score Preview ranges calculated based on benchmarking data and the City’s estimate of number of building floors; and (2) storage of full Asset Score information. Leveraging the construction permit history and site visit information for the 26 office buildings, The Cadmus Group (Cadmus) analyzed benchmarking data and Asset Score information to identify opportunities and drivers to improve performance. Correlation and regression analysis of the combined dataset was completed to determine whether building operations or specific systems – mechanical, lighting or envelope – present the best opportunities to improve energy performance. The central outcome of this project was Cadmus’ detailed analysis of the richer dataset that was created by combining the City of Portland’s commercial building permit activity and building-specific energy performance information based on metrics from ESPM and Asset Score Tool. Some of their findings collaborate with well-known facts, such as buildings with less efficient lighting systems are good targets for efficiency improvements through lighting upgrades. This analysis also helped identify that individual heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment efficiency does not necessarily correlate with building performance. However, overall HVAC system performance, as measured with the Total System Performance Ratio (TSPR) metric, is a better indicator of building performance (Goel et al. 2014). As a metric, TSPR considers whole system performance that includes equipment efficiency and system controls, such as resets for static pressure and chilled water setpoints, which can be more effective and financially feasible options for improving building performance. Given the high cost associated with envelope retrofits, opportunities to upgrade envelope insulation are likely to be limited. However, buildings with single-pane and non-thermal break windows are good candidates for window replacements, such as upgrading to double-pane windows with thermal breaks. This research project determined that developing Asset Scores based on site visits is preferable to mining City building permit data. In addition, the use of benchmarking data to develop Asset Score Preview Scores is recommended as a first step in engaging building managers to develop full Asset Scores. Asset Score Tool outputs can help building managers quickly identify opportunities for improvement and then work with the utility incentive administrator and energy service providers to develop their retrofit plan. Where full Asset Scores are available, analysis using a quadrant matrix with ENERGY STAR scores is recommended to identify buildings that present the best opportunities for operational-behavioral improvements versus ones with opportunities for upgrades to physical building systems. This workflow and the tools will help cities, utility incentive administrators, building portfolio managers and energy service providers develop energy programs and strategies for screening and analysis of buildings with the greatest energy savings potential. This report describes the project approach and research results to inform future coordination of ESPM and Asset Score data, including the use of benchmarking data to generate Preview scores. Given better awareness of energy performance, building managers can make more informed decisions to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions. With cities, states and jurisdictions adopting benchmarking and auditing ordinances, there are substantial amounts of data submitted to cities that could be used to inform investments in energy efficiency.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Health Physics Research Reactor Criticality Accident Alarm System Benchmark Overview

From the countless critical experiments performed in the world during the past century, high-quality integral benchmarks experiments have been collected and gathered into the International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments (ICSBEP Handbook), managed by the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) Working Group. This information preservation and dissemination effort is crucial for reactor licensing as well as criticality and radiation transport modeling validation. This summary reports on the status of a tentative benchmark addition to the ICSBEP Handbook. The proposed benchmark arises from legacy operation data of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Health Physics Research Reactor (HPRR). The HPRR was a small, unmoderated, unshielded fast burst reactor that was used for research in health physics and radiobiology as well as teaching and training. As part of a comprehensive investigation of the available HPRR operation data and characteristics, different possibilities for use of the valuable results were studied. A critical experiment benchmark evaluation was performed, analyzing data coming from sub-critical and critical operation of the HPRR during operator training, steady-state irradiation of samples and before critical bursts. The results of the evaluation do not satisfy for the ICSBEP standards as the benchmark relative standard uncertainty is of about 4% for k eff , and the relative difference between sample calculations and expected k eff results is of about 1.5%. Due to those unsatisfactory results, it was decided not to pursue critical experiments evaluation of the HPRR presently and to focus instead on shielding type data for the creation of a criticality accident alarm system (CAAS) and shielding category benchmark, which is currently very scarce in the ICSBEP handbook—especially concerning critical, pulsed assembly, or reactor operation data. Several dosimetry and shielding experiments from HPRR burst operation were evaluated, with different benchmark metrics as sulfur fluence, Element 57 dose, or neutron fluence at different distances and under different shield materials conditions. An evaluation focusing on the Element 57 neutron dose as a benchmark metric was submitted to the ICSBEP Technical Review Group (TRG) meeting in October 2021, and the inclusion of the evaluation in the ICSBEP Handbook was deferred. The main change proposed by the international experiment evaluation experts is to use the neutron fluence measured by Bonner spheres as a benchmark metric. This represents a quantity closer to that actually measured by the experimentalists of the HPRR compared to the Element 57 dose, which adds another step of data transformation, thus potentially adding uncertainty to the benchmark. The evaluation has been updated and will be submitted to the 2022 ICSBEP TRG meeting for inclusion in the 2023 edition of the ICSBEP Handbook. The evaluation is performed using the KENO and MAVRIC combination from the SCALE 6.2.4 code suite which was previously used in similar CAAS benchmarks to allow for the use of variance reduction techniques.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
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 OSTI2025

MLCommons Science Benchmarks

Benchmarks are a cornerstone of modern machine learning practice, providing standardized eval- uations that enable reproducibility, comparison, and scientific progress. Yet, as AI systems particularly deep learning models become increasingly dynamic, traditional static benchmarking approaches are losing their relevance. Models rapidly evolve in architecture, scale, and capability; datasets shift; and deployment contexts continuously change, creating a moving target for evaluation. Without adaptive benchmarking frame- works, both scientific assessment and real-world de- ployment risk becoming misaligned with actual system behavior. Drawing on our experience from MLCommons, educa- tional initiatives, and government programs such as the DOE s Million Parameter Consortium, we identify key barriers that hinder the broader adoption and utility of benchmarking in AI. These include substantial resource demands, limited access to specialized hardware, lack of expertise in benchmark design, and uncertainty among practitioners about how to relate benchmark results to their own application domains. Moreover, current benchmarks often emphasize peak performance on leadership-class hardware, offering limited guidance for more diverse, real-world deployment scenarios. We argue that benchmarking itself must become dy- namic in order to incorporate evolving models, updated data, and heterogeneous computational platforms while maintaining transparency, reproducibility, and inter- pretability. Democratizing this process requires not only technical innovation, but also systematic educational efforts spanning undergraduate to professional levels to develop sustained expertise in benchmark design and use. Finally, benchmarks should be framed and com- municated to support application-relevant comparisons, enabling both developers and users to make informed, context-sensitive decisions. Advancing dynamic and inclusive benchmarking practices will be essential to ensure that evaluation keeps pace with the evolving AI landscape and supports responsible, reproducible, and accessible AI deployment.

Hawks, Benjamin G. [Fermilab]↗
DOE OSTI2019

Preliminary Designs for Criticality Safety Benchmarks—Iron/Steel/Chromium Series

The nuclear criticality safety community uses critical benchmarks extensively when analyzing nuclear systems. Having benchmarks sensitive to important materials of interest helps to ensure safety and constrain results. Critical benchmarks are also invaluable to the nuclear data community, which uses these benchmarks as a check and measure of quality of nuclear data libraries. Additionally, integral benchmarks are often used to validate the performance of computational tools for simulating nuclear systems. Many integral benchmarks have been documented in the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) handbook, the International Reactor Physics Experiment Evaluation Project (IRPhEP) handbook, and the Shielding Integral Benchmark Archive Database (SINBAD). The National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC), operated by Los Alamos National Laboratory, is the only general purpose critical experiments facility in the United States of America. NCERC regularly designs and executes critical experiments and other measurements useful to a wide variety of fields including nuclear criticality safety, commercial nuclear energy, nonproliferation, and nuclear data. NCERC has recently developed tools to visualize gaps and deficiencies in existing criticality benchmarks – this work is still ongoing. Through this work and other reviews, some high priority deficiencies have been identified. This paper aims to highlight three areas where additional critical benchmarks would be useful to the nuclear criticality safety community and various other groups. Additionally, NCERC is seeking feedback in regard to these proposed measurements to make sure they are as useful to as many communities as possible.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-148: Benchmarks and Pre-Treatment Reviews: A Study of Quality Assurance Effectiveness

Purpose: To determine the impact benchmarks and pre-treatment reviews have on improving the quality of submitted clinical trial data. Methods: Benchmarks are used to evaluate a site’s ability to develop a treatment that meets a specific protocol’s treatment guidelines prior to placing their first patient on the protocol. A pre-treatment review is an actual patient placed on the protocol in which the dosimetry and contour volumes are evaluated to be per protocol guidelines prior to allowing the beginning of the treatment. A key component of these QA mechanisms is that sites are provided timely feedback to educate them on how to plan per the protocol and prevent protocol deviations on patients accrued to a protocol. For both benchmarks and pre-treatment reviews a dose volume analysis (DVA) was performed using MIM softwareTM. For pre-treatment reviews a volume contour evaluation was also performed. Results: IROC Houston performed a QA effectiveness analysis of a protocol which required both benchmarks and pre-treatment reviews. In 70 percent of the patient cases submitted, the benchmark played an effective role in assuring that the pre-treatment review of the cases met protocol requirements. The 35 percent of sites failing the benchmark subsequently modified there planning technique to pass the benchmark before being allowed to submit a patient for pre-treatment review. However, in 30 percent of the submitted cases the pre-treatment review failed where the majority (71 percent) failed the DVA. 20 percent of sites submitting patients failed to correct their dose volume discrepancies indicated by the benchmark case. Conclusion: Benchmark cases and pre-treatment reviews can be an effective QA tool to educate sites on protocol guidelines and to minimize deviations. Without the benchmark cases it is possible that 65 percent of the cases undergoing a pre-treatment review would have failed to meet the protocols requirements.Support: U24-CA-180803.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2014

Benchmark Evaluation of Start-Up and Zero-Power Measurements at the High-Temperature Engineering Test Reactor

Benchmark models were developed to evaluate six cold-critical and two warm-critical, zero-power measurements of the HTTR. Additional measurements of a fully-loaded subcritical configuration, core excess reactivity, shutdown margins, six isothermal temperature coefficients, and axial reaction-rate distributions were also evaluated as acceptable benchmark experiments. Insufficient information is publicly available to develop finely-detailed models of the HTTR as much of the design information is still proprietary. However, the uncertainties in the benchmark models are judged to be of sufficient magnitude to encompass any biases and bias uncertainties incurred through the simplification process used to develop the benchmark models. Dominant uncertainties in the experimental keff for all core configurations come from uncertainties in the impurity content of the various graphite blocks that comprise the HTTR. Monte Carlo calculations of keff are between approximately 0.9 % and 2.7 % greater than the benchmark values. Reevaluation of the HTTR models as additional information becomes available could improve the quality of this benchmark and possibly reduce the computational biases. High-quality characterization of graphite impurities would significantly improve the quality of the HTTR benchmark assessment. Simulation of the other reactor physics measurements are in good agreement with the benchmark experiment values. The complete benchmark evaluation details are available in the 2014 edition of the International Handbook of Evaluated Reactor Physics Benchmark Experiments.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Updated Godiva-IV Benchmark Preview

A note of errata prepended to the Godiva-IV delayed-critical benchmark (HEU-MET-FAST- 086) identifies two corrections to be made to the model: The glory hole in the spindle should be made larger, and the height of the safety block should be made smaller (and therefore its density made larger). In addition, the safety block at its full-in position is closer to the inner subassembly plate than was modeled in the benchmark. These changes have been made to HEU-MET-FAST-086 Case 4 in order to estimate the effect on $\kappa$ eff and on the neutron flux spectrum. Using smaller separation, a smaller safety block, and a larger glory hole caused keff to increase by 453 ± 1 pcm from the benchmark. The latest nuclear data, ENDF/B-VIII.0, have also been used, causing $\kappa$ eff to increase another 37 ± 1 pcm. Flux spectra were compared in a modeled fission foil (near the center of Godiva-IV in the glory hole) and at three external (point) detectors. Within the fission foil, using ENDF/B-VIII.0 induced changes in the flux spectrum similar in size to the changes due to using smaller separation, a smaller safety block, and a larger glory hole. At the detectors, using ENDF/B- VIII.0 induced changes in the flux spectrum much larger than those due to changing the model. In other words, the corrections to the benchmark model cause a large increase in $\kappa$ eff , but the changes to the neutron flux spectrum are small compared to those caused by using the latest nuclear data. This study presents a preview of results expected during the reevaluation of the Godiva IV benchmark, but it is not a substitute for the full reevaluation.A note of errata prepended to the Godiva-IV delayed-critical benchmark (HEU-MET-FAST- 086) identifies two corrections to be made to the model: The glory hole in the spindle should be made larger, and the height of the safety block should be made smaller (and therefore its density made larger). In addition, the safety block at its full-in position is closer to the inner subassembly plate than was modeled in the benchmark. These changes have been made to HEU-MET-FAST-086 Case 4 in order to estimate the effect on $\kappa$ eff and on the neutron flux spectrum. Using smaller separation, a smaller safety block, and a larger glory hole caused $\kappa$ eff to increase by 453 ± 1 pcm from the benchmark. The latest nuclear data, ENDF/B-VIII.0, have also been used, causing $\kappa$ eff to increase another 37 ± 1 pcm. Flux spectra were compared in a modeled fission foil (near the center of Godiva-IV in the glory hole) and at three external (point) detectors. Within the fission foil, using ENDF/B-VIII.0 induced changes in the flux spectrum similar in size to the changes due to using smaller separation, a smaller safety block, and a larger glory hole. At the detectors, using ENDF/B- VIII.0 induced changes in the flux spectrum much larger than those due to changing the model. In other words, the corrections to the benchmark model cause a large increase in $\kappa$ eff , but the changes to the neutron flux spectrum are small compared to those caused by using the latest nuclear data. This study presents a preview of results expected during the reevaluation of the Godiva IV benchmark, but it is not a substitute for the full reevaluation.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2020

Validation and Independent Uncertainty Analysis of the MIX-SOL-THERM-003 ICSBEP Benchmark

The International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) was started in 1992 by the United States Department of Energy and later in 1995 became an international project with contributions from 22 countries. The project is now organized by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). In its most recent iteration, the ICSBEP handbook contains over five thousand evaluations of critical, near-critical, and subcritical experiments conducted in facilities all around the world. These benchmarks serve as valuable information for criticality safety engineers who can use them to validate calculation techniques and establish minimum subcritical margins for operations with fissionable materials. The benchmarks in the handbook are categorized by their fissile material composition, material form (oxide, solution, or metal), and fission energy spectra. This is especially useful for those looking for benchmarks similar to a system they are working on to compare methods and identify trends. The ICSBEP Handbook Uncertainty Guide is document outlining recommended practices and methods for determining uncertainties in these benchmarks. Quantifying these uncertainties thoroughly is crucial as it allows a higher degree of confidence that data used from them is valid and relevant. The guide stresses the importance of a thorough and well documented uncertainty analysis when evaluating an experiment. All measured values of a system, whether they be dimensions or material compositions, have a certain amount of uncertainty associated with them and can be analyzed one by one to determine their effects on the system. Many evaluated benchmarks in the handbook present this in detail, however some do not, mostly earlier evaluations performed in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. Recently at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), the Nuclear Criticality Safety Division (NCSD) of LANL has been validating MCNP6.2 ® input files of criticality benchmarks for use by Whisper, a criticality safety code developed at LANL. This effort is also part of the OECD NEA Working Party on International Nuclear Data Evaluation Co-operation (WPEC) Subgroup 45, also known as Validation of Nuclear Data Libraries (VaNDaL). The goal of VaNDaL is to compile a set of validated simulation inputs for use in validating nuclear data and simulation codes. As part of these efforts, one of the benchmarks reviewed was the MIX SOL-THERM-003 ICSBEP benchmark. This paper provides an independent uncertainty analysis of this benchmark experiment.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2021

U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmark: Q1 2021 [Slides]

Our benchmarking method includes bottom-up accounting for all necessary system and projectdevelopment costs incurred when installing residential, commercial, and utility-scale systems, and it models the Q1 2021 costs for such systems, excluding any previous supply agreements or contracts. In general, we attempt to model the typical installation techniques and business operations from an installed-cost perspective, and our benchmarks are national averages. The residential PV-only benchmark and the commercial rooftop PV-only benchmark average costs by inverter type (string inverters, string inverters with direct current [DC] optimizers, and microinverters), weighted by inverter market share. The residential PV-only benchmark is further averaged across small installer and national integrator business models, weighted by market share. All benchmarks include variations—accounting for the differences in size, equipment, and operational use (particularly for storage)—that are currently available in the marketplace. All benchmarks assume nonunionized construction labor; residential and commercial PV systems predominantly use nonunionized labor, and the type of labor required for utility-scale PV systems depends heavily on the development process. All benchmarks assume the use of monofacial monocrystalline silicon PV modules. Benchmarks using cadmium telluride or bifacial modules could result in significantly different results. The data in this annual benchmark report inform the formulation of and track progress toward the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Energy Technologies Office’s Government Performance and Reporting Act cost targets.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Summary of LANL Critical Benchmark Comparison Study and Revisions for Cases Involving HEU, LEU, MIX, and Pu

This report documents results obtained for revisions made to cases involving Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU), Intermediate Enriched Uranium (IEU), a mixture of Pu and Uranium (MIX), as well as Pu cases. A previous summary of revisions for HEU an Pu cases was reported and additional investigations into four cases originally presented therein uncovered further revisions which led to better agreement with other transport codes, those cases are updated in this report. The summary of all cases reported in Reference 2 is updated in this report. In addition, a previous summary of revisions for LEU and MIX was reported, a summary of those revisions in reproduced in this report for a comprehensive summary of changes to benchmarks beginning in fiscal year 2020 to current date. The report focuses on the changes made to LANL benchmarks modeled with MCNP6 using ENDF/B-VII.1 nuclear data that appeared to have discrepant results when compared with results of other codes. Feedback was used to pinpoint review of benchmark input files and to revise them when necessary. This report documents the results of review and revision of specific benchmarks highlighted as possibly discrepant in the comparison study. In addition, there is an effort tied to this work involving collaboration between LANL XCP and NCS Divisions in the development of a shared review/revision procedure and use of a new benchmark repository. LANL has a benchmark library of critical experiments from the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) Handbook modeled for use with MCNP. This collection is now over 1100 benchmarks, referred to as the Whisper-1.1 library because it is used with the sensitivity/uncertainty package, Whisper, which supports nuclear criticality safety validation and is released with MCNP6.2. The collection, originally created several decades ago, is a combination of smaller collections, which has been revised and expanded, by various groups at LANL over the years. The original authors are no longer at the laboratory and little formal documentation of review and revision of these benchmarks exists today. A branch of the benchmark collection was already the subject of a formal review undertaken by the LANL NCS Division and expanded to include XCP Division.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

An MLCommons Scientific Benchmarks Ontology

Scientific machine learning research spans diverse domains and data modalities, yet existing benchmark efforts remain siloed and lack standardization. This makes novel and transformative applications of machine learning to critical scientific use-cases more fragmented and less clear in pathways to impact. This paper introduces an ontology for scientific benchmarking developed through a unified, community-driven effort that extends the MLCommons ecosystem to cover physics, chemistry, materials science, biology, climate science, and more. Building on prior initiatives such as XAI-BENCH, FastML Science Benchmarks, PDEBench, and the SciMLBench framework, our effort consolidates a large set of disparate benchmarks and frameworks into a single taxonomy of scientific, application, and system-level benchmarks. New benchmarks can be added through an open submission workflow coordinated by the MLCommons Science Working Group and evaluated against a six-category rating rubric that promotes and identifies high-quality benchmarks, enabling stakeholders to select benchmarks that meet their specific needs. The architecture is extensible, supporting future scientific and AI/ML motifs, and we discuss methods for identifying emerging computing patterns for unique scientific workloads. The MLCommons Science Benchmarks Ontology provides a standardized, scalable foundation for reproducible, cross-domain benchmarking in scientific machine learning. A companion webpage for this work has also been developed as the effort evolves: https://mlcommons-science.github.io/benchmark/

Hawks, Ben [Fermilab] (ORCID:0000000157000288)↗
DOE OSTI2020

Gaussian Process Optimization of Sensitivity-Based Similarity Metrics between New Nuclear Applications and New/Existing Benchmarks

Confidently designing safe, new nuclear criticality experiments requires expert judgement, which could take years of experience. Sensitivity/uncertainty (S/U) analysis can be utilized by less experienced individuals to conservatively estimate uncertainties in important parameters, such as k eff , in newly proposed nuclear applications. This type of analysis relies on matching new nuclear applications with existing benchmark experiments. The Whisper-1.1 software package included in MCNP6.2 ®1 contains more than 1,100 International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) benchmarks. These benchmarks however rarely match new nuclear applications. The number of benchmarks available to match a given set of materials or geometric configurations varies significantly. Furthermore, recently performed benchmark experiments may not have had enough time to be properly documented and published. Benchmarks are vital for determining the accuracy of nuclear data and can assist nuclear physics and evaluators in improving nuclear data libraries. Exhaustively exploring the parameter space using simulations with software such as MCNP is too computationally expensive. In this work, Gaussian process optimization was implemented to reduce the number of simulations needed for optimization over multiple parameters. This optimization scheme was designed to selectively generate new benchmarks with high sensitivity-based similarity metrics to user-defined nuclear applications. Two benchmark models of spherically nested shells containing plutonium, uranium, tantalum, and water were used in the optimization to match an application containing plutonium plates, stacked in a tantalum reflector, surrounded by water.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Sensitivity and uncertainty of the IFR-1 BISON benchmark

The fuel performance code BISON is being used to evaluate metallic fuel for a new fast-spectrum test reactor called the Versatile Test Reactor, which is being considered for adoption by the US Department of Energy. To quantify the accuracy of BISON predictions, researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory have been developing a series of benchmarks based on legacy metallic fuel experiments. As part of this effort, the sensitivity of BISON predictions to variations in model inputs and the uncertainties associated with BISON predictions must be established. This paper summarizes efforts to perform a comprehensive sensitivity analysis (SA) and uncertainty quantification (UQ) on a benchmark based on the IFR-1 experiment.For the SA, at least one input was chosen from every BISON model and physics module used in the benchmark. The inputs were varied individually in a series of BISON simulations. Here, the resulting variations in benchmark predictions were normalized to calculate sensitivities. These sensitivities were then used to inform input selections for the UQ.The UQ was performed using the Monte Carlo UQ method. A literature review was conducted to estimate uncertainty distributions for the selected inputs, and values were sampled randomly from each distribution in a series of BISON simulations. Variations in the benchmark predictions were used to estimate uncertainty distributions and confidence intervals. It was found that nearly 100% of the benchmark predictions matched the corresponding legacy values within the confidence intervals. However, this is at least partially because the confidence intervals associated with benchmark predictions were wide. The uncertainty contributions of assumptions in the benchmark, experimental uncertainties, and BISON models were quantified. Some analysis was performed to identify inputs that contributed to the uncertainties. Finally, recommendations are made for future benchmark and future BISON development.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Informing Robust Functional Relationship Benchmarks: An Evaluation of the Temperature Sensitivity of Ecosystem Respiration Across the Arctic-Boreal Region

During land model development, simulated carbon dynamics are often benchmarked against observational data sets to evaluate model performance. Functional relationship benchmarks are the relationship between a driving variable (e.g., temperature) and a response variable (e.g., ecosystem respiration) and are a promising tool for assessing model performance by evaluating modeled sensitivities to changing environmental conditions. However, observed functional relationships can be influenced by choices made during data collection and throughout the benchmarking process, impacting the inferred skill of land models. To avoid misrepresenting a model's true performance, it is necessary to systematically evaluate best practices when constructing functional relationship benchmarks. We developed a set of guidelines for constructing functional relationship benchmarks, considering the choice of data set, number of daily observations, temporal extent, and temporal resolution across Alaska and Canada over a 20-year period from 2001 to 2020. The temperature sensitivity of ecosystem respiration from observations, evaluated through an apparent Q 10 , is highly variable both spatially and as a result of the data processing approach applied in the benchmark formation. When benchmarking 13 models from the Warming Permafrost Model Intercomparison Project (WrPMIP), the range in inferred model skill is substantially impacted by the choices applied in constructing functional relationship benchmarks. The inferred performance of a given model is most sensitive to the number of daily observations and temporal extent, followed by choice of benchmark data set and temporal averaging. Results from this analysis can guide the development of consistent and robust functional relationships for future model evaluation studies.

Poe, Jeralyn [Northern Arizona University, Flagsta↗