Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “FIT”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Generating mock galaxy catalogues for flux-limited samples like the DESI Bright Galaxy Survey

ABSTRACT Accurate mock galaxy catalogues are crucial to validate analysis pipelines used to constrain dark energy models. We present a fast HOD-fitting method which we apply to the AbacusSummit simulations to create a set of mock catalogues for the DESI Bright Galaxy Survey, which contain r-band magnitudes and $(g-r)$ colours. The halo tabulation method fits HODs for different absolute magnitude threshold samples simultaneously, preventing unphysical HOD crossing between samples. We validate the HOD fitting procedure by fitting to real-space clustering measurements and galaxy number densities from the MXXL BGS mock, which was tuned to the SDSS and GAMA surveys. The best-fitting clustering measurements and number densities are mostly within the assumed errors, but the clustering for the faint samples is low on large scales. The best-fitting HOD parameters are robust when fitting to simulations with different realizations of the initial conditions. When varying the cosmology, trends are seen as a function of each cosmological parameter. We use the best-fitting HOD parameters to create cubic box and cut sky mocks from the AbacusSummit simulations, in a range of cosmologies. As an illustration, we compare the ${}^{0.1}M_r\lt -20$ sample of galaxies in the mock with BGS measurements from the DESI one-percent survey. We find good agreement in the number densities, and the projected correlation function is reasonable, with differences that can be improved in the future by fitting directly to BGS clustering measurements. The cubic box and cut-sky mocks in different cosmologies are made publicly available.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Consistent and reproducible computation of the glass transition temperature from molecular dynamics simulations

In many fields, from semiconductors for opto-electronic applications to ionic liquids (ILs) for separations, the glass transition temperature (Tg) of a material is a useful gauge for its potential use in practical settings. As a result, there is a great deal of interest in predicting Tg using molecular simulations. However, the uncertainty and variation in the trend shift method, a common approach in simulations to predict Tg, can be high. This is due to the need for human intervention in defining a fitting range for linear fits of density with temperature assumed for the liquid and glass phases across the simulated cooling. The definition of such fitting ranges then defines the estimate for the Tg as the intersection of linear fits. We eliminate this need for human intervention by leveraging the Shapiro–Wilk normality test and proposing an algorithm to define the fitting ranges and, consequently, Tg. Through this integration, we incorporate into our automated methodology that residuals must be normally distributed around zero for any fit, a requirement that must be met for any regression problem. Consequently, fitting ranges for realizing linear fits for each phase are statistically defined rather than visually inferred, obtaining an estimate for Tg without any human intervention. The method is also capable of finding multiple linear regimes across density vs temperature curves. We compare the predictions of our proposed method across multiple IL and semiconductor molecular dynamics simulation results from the literature and compare other proposed methods for automatically detecting Tg from density–temperature data. We believe that our proposed method would allow for more consistent predictions of Tg. We make this methodology available and open source through GitHub.

Chemistry↗
DOE OSTI2024

Optimal Stopping Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Importance Prior studies have shown that the benefits, harms, and costs of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at older ages are associated with a patient’s sex, health, and screening history. However, these studies were hypothetical exercises and not directly informed by data on CRC risk. Objective To identify the optimal stopping ages for CRC screening by sex, comorbidity, and screening history from a cost-effectiveness perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants This economic evaluation first validated the MISCAN-Colon (Microsimulation Screening Analysis–Colon) model against community-based CRC incidence and mortality rates for 2 subcohorts of the PRECISE (Optimizing Colorectal Cancer Screening Precision and Outcomes in Community-Based Populations) cohort. Subsequently, different CRC screening scenarios were simulated in older individuals. Cohorts of US adults aged 76 to 90 years varied by sex and comorbidity status (none, low, moderate, or severe). Statistical and sensitivity analyses were performed from March 2023 to May 2024. Exposures CRC screening histories including fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy, such as a negative colonoscopy result from 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 years before the index age; 1 to 5 negative FIT results within 5 years of the index age, with different patterns of recency; or a combination of negative colonoscopy and negative FIT results. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes included estimated lifetime clinical outcomes, incremental costs, and quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG) associated with 1 additional FIT or colonoscopy. Optimal stopping age for screening, defined as the oldest age for which the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was still below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $\$$100 000 per QALYG, was evaluated. Results The first of the 2 PRECISE subcohorts used in validating the simulation model included 25 974 adults (15 060 females [58.0%]; 54.7% aged 76 to 80 years) with a negative colonoscopy result 10 years before the index date. The second subcohort consisted of 118 269 adults (67 058 females [56.7%]; 90.5% aged 76 to 80 years) with a negative FIT result 1 year before the index date. Older age, male sex, higher comorbidity levels, and recent CRC screenings were associated with reduced incremental benefit and cost-effectiveness of additional screening. For the reference cohort of 76-year-old females without comorbidities and a negative colonoscopy result 10 years before the index age, 1 additional colonoscopy cost $\$$38 226 per QALYG. For cohorts with otherwise equivalent characteristics, associated costs increased to $\$$1 689 945 per QALYG for females at age 90 years without comorbidities and a negative colonoscopy results 10 years before the index age, $\$$51 604 per QALYG for males at age 76 years without comorbidities and a negative colonoscopy result 10 years before the index age, and $\$$108 480 per QALYG for females at age 76 years with severe comorbidities and a negative colonoscopy result 10 years before the index age and decreased to $\$$16 870 per QALYG for females without comorbidities and a negative colonoscopy result 30 years before the index age. The optimal stopping ages across different cohorts ranged from younger than 76 to 86 years for colonoscopy and younger than 76 to 88 years for FIT. Conclusions and Relevance In this economic evaluation, age, sex, screening history, comorbidity, and future screening modality were associated with the clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and optimal stopping age for CRC screening. These results can inform guideline development and patient-directed informed decision-making.

Harlass, Matthias [Erasmus Erasmus University Medi↗
DOE OSTI2026

Low energy neutron light output characterization of EJ301D and deuterated stilbene with a comparison of light output characterization methods

The neutron-induced light yield of a 2.54 cm diameter by 2.54 cm long right circular cylinder of EJ301D and a (5.08 cm)3 custom made cube of deuterated trans-stilbene-d12 (d-stilbene) were measured over incident neutron energies from 300 keV to 2.2 MeV and 200 keV to 2.4 MeV, respectively. The measurements were performed using a time-of-flight experiment with a Cf-252 source and an approximately 1.5 m flight path. We compare three light output spectrum full energy deposition edge estimation methods: (1) simulating the neutron energy spectrum edge and fitting it to the light output spectrum, (2) using the inflection point of the light output spectrum edge (derivative method, a.k.a. Kornilov’s method), and (3) using an empirical model fit to the edge of the light output spectrum. Both the derivative and equation fit methods do not account for physical processes such as multiple neutron scattering in the detectors. They instead rely on assumptions about the linear shape continuum shape of the light output spectrum and the direct correlation between the location of the spectrum’s inflection point and maximum energy deposition. These assumptions were found to introduce bias into those methods when tested against simulated spectra with known edge locations. When tested against measured spectra the derivative method was found to differ from the simulation fit by greater than 30% at low energies with large discontinuities for adjacent data points above 800 keV incident neutron energy. The empirical equation fitting method was found to also exhibit bias of a similar magnitude, but with significantly more continuous behavior, especially with the lower count data of the smaller volumed EJ301D scintillator. Experimental light output yield for this neutron energy range is reported using the simulated spectrum fitting method because it includes physics neglected by the other methods, and did not exhibit the bias observed in the other methods

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2024

Advanced EXAFS analysis techniques applied to the L -edges of the lanthanide oxides

The unique properties of the lanthanide (Ln) elements make them critical components of modern technologies, such as lasers, anti-corrosive films and catalysts. Thus, there is significant interest in establishing structure–property relationships for Ln-containing materials to advance these technologies. Extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) is an excellent technique for this task considering its ability to determine the average local structure around the Ln atoms for both crystalline and amorphous materials. However, the limited availability of EXAFS reference spectra of the Ln oxides and challenges in the EXAFS analysis have hindered the application of this technique to these elements. The challenges include the limited k-range available for the analysis due to the superposition of L-edges on the EXAFS, multielectron excitations (MEEs) creating erroneous peaks in the EXAFS and the presence of inequivalent absorption sites. Herein, we removed MEEs to model the local atomic environment more accurately for light Ln oxides. Further, we investigated the use of cubic and non-cubic lattice expansion to minimize the fitting parameters needed and connect the fitting parameters to physically meaningful crystal parameters. The cubic expansion reduced the number of fitting parameters but resulted in a statistically worse fit. The non-cubic expansion resulted in a similar quality fit and showed non-isotropic expansion in the crystal lattice of Nd 2 O 3 . In total, the EXAFS spectra and the fits for the entire set of Ln oxides (excluding promethium) are included. The knowledge developed here can assist in the structural determination of a wide variety of Ln compounds and can further studies on their structure–property relationships.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

TRIZ-Based Design Improvement for Facilitating Transmission Control Unit Remanufacturing

Design for Remanufacturing (DfRem) centers on enhancing product design and operations to facilitate remanufacturing while increasing both economic and environmental sustainability. DfRem requires a comprehensive understanding of product characteristics, production conditions, and operational constraints. Thus, DfRem requires a systematic methodology to identify and implement alternative designs. Among many critical steps in remanufacturing, disassembly is essential because it directly supports remanufacturing by separation of product components for cleaning, inspection, and other subsequent process steps. This study proposes a TRIZ-based framework to improve product design for disassembly in support of remanufacturing. The framework is applied to a transmission control unit (TCU) case study. The current TCU design prevents remanufacturing due to the sealant-based component joinery, which complicates disassembly and risks damaging the printed circuit board (PCB). After defining technical contradictions for the TCU product design and reviewing the suggested TRIZ principles to solve the conflicts, a cantilever snap-fit design alternative is developed. The economic feasibility of the snap-fit design is assessed by comparing the current and snap-fit design costs for three life cycles. The cost analysis demonstrates that the cost of the snap-fit design remains the same as the current design. Additionally, the snap-fit design offers substantial cost savings for three life cycles compared to the current design. We demonstrate how snap-fit design supports both environmental and economic sustainability.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for KETCHUP: Parameterizing of Large-Scale Kinetic Models Using Multiple Datasets with Different Reference States

Repository for Kinetic Estimation Tool Capturing Heterogeneous Datasets Using Pyomo (KETCHUP), a flexible parameter estimation tool that leverages a primal-dual interior-point algorithm to solve a nonlinear programming (NLP) problem that identifies a set of parameters capable of recapitulating the steady-state fluxes and concentrations in wild-type and perturbed metabolic networks. KETCHUP can use K-FIT [2] input files. Example K-FIT input files are located in the K-FIT repository at https://github.com/maranasgroup/K-FIT.

Metabolomics↗
DOE OSTI2026

Non-conformal interface-cohesive modeling with the shifted boundary method

The accurate simulation of boundary- and interface-dominated problems on complex geometries remains challenging when boundary- or interface-fitted meshes are difficult to generate, particularly for curved boundaries, polycrystalline microstructures, and dense interface networks. The Shifted Boundary Method (SBM) alleviates this meshing burden by shifting the enforcement of boundary conditions from the true boundary to a nearby surrogate boundary and recovering the effect of the true boundary through geometric correction terms, thereby enabling standard finite element spaces on non-boundary-fitted meshes. In this report, we develop a general shiftedboundary and shifted-interface framework within the open-source MOOSE framework. We first present a general SBM implementation for complex geometries on non-boundary-fitted meshes. We then adopt the Shifted Interface Method (SIM) for internal interfaces and develop a unified shifted-interface treatment in which the interface law is enforced on a surrogate interface and the effect of the true interface is recovered through shifted jumps, fluxes, and tractions. This perspective brings scalar thermal-contact and vector-valued cohesive-zone mechanics into a single framework, the latter realized as the Shifted Cohesive Zone Method (SCZM) and coupled with history-dependent constitutive models from NEML2. We further extend the MOOSE mesh infrastructure to support cohesive-zone calculations on distributed meshes. The framework is verified and demonstrated through three progressive studies: Poisson’s equation on a smoothed starshaped domain, a manufactured thermal-contact problem on a non-interface-fitted mesh, and a two-dimensional polycrystalline representative volume element combining crystal plasticity with cohesive grain-boundary interfaces. Across these studies, the shifted formulations reproduce boundary- and interface-fitted reference solutions with high fidelity, indicating that the proposed framework provides an accurate and efficient route to boundary- and interface-dominated simulations on arbitrary geometries without requiring fitted meshes.

Yang, Cheng-Hau↗
DOE OSTI2025

SymbolFit: Automatic Parametric Modeling with Symbolic Regression

We introduce SymbolFit (API: https://github.com/hftsoi/symbolfit), a framework that automates parametric modeling by using symbolic regression to perform a machine-search for functions that fit the data while simultaneously providing uncertainty estimates in a single run. Traditionally, constructing a parametric model to accurately describe binned data has been a manual and iterative process, requiring an adequate functional form to be determined before the fit can be performed. The main challenge arises when the appropriate functional forms cannot be derived from first principles, especially when there is no underlying true closed-form function for the distribution. In this work, we develop a framework that automates and streamlines the process by utilizing symbolic regression, a machine learning technique that explores a vast space of candidate functions without requiring a predefined functional form because the functional form itself is treated as a trainable parameter, making the process far more efficient and effortless than traditional regression methods. We demonstrate the framework in high-energy physics experiments at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) using five real proton-proton collision datasets from new physics searches, including background modeling in resonance searches for high-mass dijet, trijet, paired-dijet, diphoton, and dimuon events. We show that our framework can flexibly and efficiently generate a wide range of candidate functions that fit a nontrivial distribution well using a simple fit configuration that varies only by random seed, and that the same fit configuration, which defines a vast function space, can also be applied to distributions of different shapes, whereas achieving a comparable result with traditional methods would have required extensive manual effort.

Tsoi, Ho Fung [Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia↗
DOE OSTI2024

Measurement of (anti)alpha production in central Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV

In this letter, measurements of (anti)alpha production in central (0–10%) Pb–Pb collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon–nucleon pair of $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV are presented, including the first measurement of an antialpha transverse-momentum spectrum. Owing to its large mass, the production of (anti)alpha is expected to be sensitive to different particle production models. The production yields and transverse-momentum spectra of nuclei are of particular interest because they provide a stringent test of these models. The averaged antialpha and alpha spectrum is compared to the spectra of lighter particles, by including it into a common blast-wave fit capturing the hydrodynamic-like flow of all particles. This fit is indicating that the (anti)alpha also participates in the collective expansion of the medium created in the collision. A blast-wave fit including only protons, (anti)alpha, and other light nuclei results in a similar flow velocity as the fit that includes all particles. A similar flow velocity, but a significantly larger kinetic freeze-out temperature is obtained when only protons and light nuclei are included in the fit. The coalescence parameter B 4 is well described by calculations from a statistical hadronization model but significantly underestimated by calculations assuming nucleus formation via coalescence of nucleons. Similarly, the (anti)alpha-to-proton ratio is well described by the statistical hadronization model. On the other hand, coalescence calculations including approaches with different implementations of the (anti)alpha substructure tend to underestimate the data.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Challenges of standard halo models in constraining galaxy properties from cosmic infrared background anisotropies

The halo model, combined with halo occupation distribution (HOD) prescriptions, is widely used to interpret cosmic infrared background (CIB) anisotropies and extract physical information about star-forming galaxies and their connection to large-scale structures. Recent CIB-specific implementations of the halo model have adopted more physical parameterizations. However, the extent to which these models can reliably recover meaningful physical parameters remains uncertain. We assessed whether the current parameterization of CIB halo models is sufficient to recover astrophysical quantities, such as star formation efficiency, η(M h , z), and halo mass at which the peak of star formation efficiency occurs, M max , when fit to mock data. We also assessed whether discrepancies arise from assumptions about galaxy emission (the HOD ingredients) or from more fundamental components in the halo model, such as bias and matter clustering. We fit the M21 CIB HOD model, implemented within the halo model framework, to mock CIB power spectra and star formation rate density (SFRD) data generated from the SIDES-Uchuu simulation, and compared the best-fit parameters to the known simulation inputs. We then repeated the analysis using a simplified version of the simulation (SSU), explicitly designed to match the HOD assumptions. A detailed comparison of model and simulation outputs was carried out to trace the origin of observed discrepancies. While the M21 HOD model provides a good fit to the mock data, it failed to recover the intrinsic parameters accurately, particularly the halo mass at which star formation efficiency peaks. This mismatch persists even when fitting data generated with the same model assumptions. We find strong agreement (within 5%) in the emission-related components (SFRD, emissivity), but observe a scale- and redshift-dependent offset exceeding 20% in the two-halo term of the CIB power spectrum. This likely arises from limitations in the treatment of halo bias and matter clustering within the linear approximation. Additionally, incorporating scatter in the SFR–halo mass relation and the spectral energy distribution (SED) templates significantly affects the shot noise (∼50%), but has only a modest impact (less than 10%) on the clustered component. These results suggest that recovering physical parameters from CIB clustering requires improvements to the cosmological ingredients of the halo model framework, such as adopting scale-dependent halo bias and nonlinear matter power spectra in addition to careful modeling of emission physics.

cosmic background radiation↗
DOE OSTI2024

Did we hear the sound of the Universe boiling? Analysis using the full fluid velocity profiles and NANOGrav 15-year data

Abstract In this paper, we analyse sound waves arising from a cosmic phase transition where the full velocity profile is taken into account as an explanation for the gravitational wave spectrum observed by multiple pulsar timing array groups. Unlike the broken power law used in the literature, in this scenario the power law after the peak depends on the macroscopic properties of the phase transition, allowing for a better fit with pulsar timing array (PTA) data. We compare the best fit with that obtained using the usual broken power law and, unsurprisingly, find a better fit with the gravitational wave (GW) spectrum that utilizes the full velocity profile. Even more importantly, the thermal parameters that produce the best fit are quite different. We then discuss models that can produce the best-fit point and complementary probes using CMB experiments and searches for light particles in DUNE, IceCUBE-Gen2, neutrinoless doubleβ-decay, and forward physics facilities (FPF) at the LHC like FASERν, etc.

Astronomy & Astrophysics↗
DOE OSTI2025

Constraining the phase shift of relativistic species in DESI BAOs

In the early Universe, neutrinos decouple quickly from the primordial plasma and propagate without further interactions. The impact of free-streaming neutrinos is to create a temporal shift in the gravitational potential that impacts the acoustic waves known as baryon acoustic oscillations (BAOs), resulting in a non-linear spatial shift in the Fourier-space BAO signal. In this work, we make use of and extend upon an existing methodology to measure the phase shift amplitude $\beta _{\phi }$ and apply it to the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Data Release 1 (DR1) BAOs with an anisotropic BAO fitting pipeline. We validate the fitting methodology by testing the pipeline with two publicly available fitting codes applied to highly precise cubic box simulations and realistic simulations representative of the DESI DR1 data. We find further study towards the methods used in fitting the BAO signal will be necessary to ensure accurate constraints on $\beta _{\phi }$ in future DESI data releases. Using DESI DR1, we present individual measurements of the anisotropic BAO distortion parameters and the $\beta _{\phi }$ for the different tracers, and additionally a combined fit to $\beta _{\phi }$ resulting in $\beta _{\phi } = 2.7 \pm 1.7$. After including a prior on the distortion parameters from constraints using Planck we find $\beta _{\phi } = 2.7^{+0.60}_{-0.67}$ suggesting $\beta _{\phi } > 0$ at 4.3$\sigma$ significance. This result may hint at a phase shift that is not purely sourced from the standard model expectation for $N_{\rm {eff}}$ or could be a upwards statistical fluctuation in the measured $\beta _{\phi }$; this result relaxes in models with additional freedom beyond Lambda-cold dark matter.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Toward shell model interactions with credible uncertainties

Background: The nuclear shell model is a powerful framework for predicting nuclear structure observables, but relies on interaction matrix elements fit to experimental data as its inputs. Extending the shell model's applicability, particularly toward dripline nuclei, requires efficient fitting methods and credible uncertainty quantification. Traditional approaches face computational challenges and may underestimate uncertainties. Purpose: We develop and test a framework combining eigenvector continuation and Markov chain Monte Carlo to efficiently fit shell model interaction matrix elements and quantify their uncertainties. Methods: Eigenvector continuation is used to emulate shell model calculations, reducing computational costs. The emulator enables Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling to optimize interaction matrix elements and rigorously assess parametric uncertainties. Here, the framework is benchmarked using the USDB interaction in the 𝑠⁢𝑑 shell. Results: The emulator reproduces the USDB interaction with negligible error, validating its use in shell model fitting applications. However, we find that to obtain credible predictive intervals, the model defect of the shell model itself, rather than experimental or emulator error, must be taken into account in order to obtain credible uncertainties. Conclusions: The proposed framework provides an efficient and rigorous approach for fitting shell model interactions and quantifying uncertainties. Further, the normality assumption used in the past appears sufficient to describe the distribution of interaction matrix elements. However, it is crucial to account for model correlations to avoid underestimating uncertainties.

Nuclear forces↗
DOE OSTI2024

Single-channel and single-energy partial-wave analysis with continuity improved through minimal phase constraints

Single-energy partial-wave analysis has often been applied as a way to fit data with minimal model dependence. However, remaining unconstrained, partial waves at neighboring energies will vary discontinuously because the overall amplitude phase cannot be determined through single-channel measurements. This problem can be mitigated through the use of a constraining penalty function based on an associated energy-dependent fit. However, the weight given to this constraint results in a biased fit to the data. In this paper, for the first time, we explore a constraining function which does not influence the fit to data. The constraint comes from the overall phase found in multichannel fits which, in the present study, are the Bonn-Gatchina and Jülich-Bonn multichannel analyses. The data are well reproduced and weighting of the penalty function does not influence the result. The method is applied to K⁢Λ photoproduction data and all observables can be maximally well reproduced. While the employed multichannel analyses display very different multipole amplitudes, we show that the major difference between two sets of multipoles can be related to the different overall phases.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗