Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “structured text”

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.

77 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

AI Model Benchmarking for Nonproliferation Applications: Steel Thread Benchmarking Task Force Technical Report (Rev. 2)

Steel Thread is a NA-22 venture that seeks to build trustworthy, reliable AI models that can be used in a wide variety of nonproliferation tasks. A key aspect of building these models is developing appropriate benchmarks and evaluation methods, which will enable the venture to identify and adapt models to provide the most value in the nonproliferation domain. Benchmarks must be relevant to key tasks in this domain, such as question answering, information retrieval, document summarization and classification, consensus analysis, and image and data analysis. This report 1) provides an overview of benchmark design, evaluation, and challenges; 2) reviews a variety of open benchmarks, with a focus on language models and tasks; and 3) identifies benchmarks that are most relevant to Steel Thread. This report is intended to serve as a basis for further efforts to classify and evaluate benchmarks and their correlation with success on nonproliferation-specific tasks. The Steel Thread venture has defined benchmarks to be a particular combination of a dataset (or datasets) and a metric (or metrics) conceptualized as representing one or more specific tasks or sets of abilities for a specific modality. It is adopted by a research community as a shared framework for comparing methods.1 It includes 1) Data: Labeled (a designated subset not used for training, which could be all the data), 2) Metric: A way to quantify performance, 3) Task/Ability: What the benchmark is testing, 4) Protocol: A structured and repeatable evaluation process, 5) Baseline/Reference Model: For comparison; could be statistical, rule-based, SME-derived, or another model, and 6) Maintenance Plan: to update with new information over time; important for long-term utility. For further clarity, the definition includes what a benchmark, in this context, is not. It is not a corpus of training data, specific to a model (it is intended to apply to a range of models), a universal evaluation of performance, a guarantee that the ‘top’ model on the leaderboard will be the best fit for every specific use case, an all-encompassing proof of a model’s universal quality, nor is it a one-size-fits-all measure of success. It does not cover every real-world constraint (like operational, ethical, or cost considerations), a systems integration test, or a unit test. This definition was inspired by and resulted from discussions within the Steel Thread Benchmarking Task Force. This group was formed to define what we would mean as a benchmark within Steel Thread but persisted as the need to develop a thorough understanding of the large and expanding existing benchmarking space. This technical report is a result of the group’s divide and conquer approach to exploring this space. The release of benchmarks might not be progressing as quickly as model development, but it is moving very fast, as many benchmarks quickly become saturated, when state-of-the-art models score so close to the benchmark’s ceiling that their results are virtually indistinguishable. At that point, the test no longer differentiates between new systems, so researchers usually stop reporting scores as the benchmark no longer informs about improvements from the next generation of models. In the OpenAI announcement of GPT-5, they reported results on six flagship public benchmarks (AIME 2025, SWE-bench Verified, Aider Polyglot, MMMU, HealthBench Hard, GPQA) but the full system-card covers roughly thirty-five separate evaluations, comprising hundreds of test task items in total. There have been some efforts to summarize benchmarks in specific fields, like for text-to-image generation, but these surveys have had a narrow methodology scope. Therefore, a comprehensive survey of all benchmarks or even all benchmarks that could be relevant to Steel Thread is outside of the scope of this report. We chose some specific benchmarks to investigate in detail.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Auriga Streams – I: disrupting satellites surrounding Milky Way-mass haloes at multiple resolutions

In a hierarchically formed Universe, galaxies accrete smaller systems that tidally disrupt as they evolve in the host’s potential. We present a complete catalogue of disrupting galaxies accreted onto Milky Way-mass haloes from the Auriga suite of cosmological magnetohydrodynamic zoom-in simulations. We classify accretion events as intact satellites, stellar streams, or phase-mixed systems based on automated criteria calibrated to a visually classified sample, and match accretions to their counterparts in haloes re-simulated at higher resolution. Most satellites at the present day have lost substantial amounts of stellar mass – 67 per cent have $f_\text{bound} < 0.97$ (our threshold of lost stellar mass to no longer be considered intact), while 53 per cent satisfy a more stringent $f_\text{bound} < 0.8$. Streams typically outnumber intact systems, contribute a smaller fraction of overall accreted stars, and are substantial contributors at intermediate distances from the host centre ($\sim$0.1 to $\sim 0.7R_\text{200m}$, or $\sim$35 to $\sim$250 kpc for the Milky Way). We also identify accretion events that disrupt to form streams around massive intact satellites instead of the main host. Streams are more likely than intact or phase-mixed systems to have experienced pre-processing, suggesting this mechanism is important for setting disruption rates around Milky Way-mass haloes. All of these results are preserved across different simulation resolutions, though we do find some hints that satellites disrupt more readily at lower resolution. The Auriga haloes suggest that disrupting satellites surrounding Milky Way-mass galaxies are the norm and that a wealth of tidal features waits to be uncovered in upcoming surveys.

galaxies: haloes↗
DOE OSTI2026

Mountain Basin Controls on the Snow-to-Streamflow Signal: An AIC-Weighted Multiple Linear Regression Framework

A regression-based analysis quantifies how basin characteristics modulate the snow-to-streamflow signal. First, we use the ERA5-Land reanalysis gridded product (European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts reanalysis 5 -Land component) for 4,655 hydrologic unit code - 10 (HUC10) mountain basins across the western United States (US) for water years 1987–2024. Linear regressions are performed for peak snow water equivalent (SWE) and annual streamflow for each mountain basin. Models use ordinary least squares in Python’s statsmodels package. After which, an Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)–weighted ensemble multiple linear regression (MLR) framework with 47 watershed traits is used to predict the linear regression coefficient of determination (r-squared) defining the ability of peak SWE to predict annual streamflow across all mountain basin. Predictor sets are constrained to avoid multicollinearity by excluding models with variance inflation factors (VIF) greater than 5. Mountain basin traits included in the MLR include seasonal climate, topography, vegetation type and structure, and bedrock geology. Accepted models are considered if their AIC is within 2.0 of the model with the minimum AIC, or best model. To compare predictor influence across acceptable models, we computed standardized regression coefficients. To evaluate structural redundancy among models, we constructed binary inclusion vectors for each acceptable model, denoting whether a predictor was present (1) or absent (0). Core predictor variables are defined as occurring in at least 67% of the acceptable models. For this regional analysis, only one model was found acceptable, with higher snow-to-streamflow translation (higher r-squared) occurring in colder mountain basins with higher relative winter precipitation, more snow accumulation and a lower fraction of annual precipitation that falls in the spring and summer. The second component of the data package uses previously published, high-resolution output from an integrated hydrological model of the East River watershed using the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater and Surface water Flow model (GSFLOW, doi:10.15485/1998576). East River MLR expands upon the approach described above to explore the response of five streamflow metrics—annual streamflow, runoff efficiency, 7-day minimum flow, low-flow duration, and non-perennial stream fraction to snow system indicators including peak SWE, snow-covered area, snow disappearance date, and the fraction of basin area characterized by low-to-no snow, as well as seasonal precipitation and temperature, and annual hydrologic variables representing soil moisture, evapotranspiration (ET), the partitioning of incoming precipitation to evapotranspiration (ET/P), groundwater storage, and groundwater inflow to streams. MLR was done on all water years (P0: 1987-2024) and for each period as determined in the split analysis using pooled regression techniques (P1: 1987-2011 and P2: 2012-2024) to evaluate shifting predictor variable emphasis on streamflow generation. Results indicate that since 2012, peak SWE has lost statistical strength in its prediction of annual streamflow and runoff efficiency, and the indirect influence of spring temperature has emerged as critically important. Low-flow metrics remain largely influenced by soil moisture, vegetation water use and groundwater inflows with summer precipitation becoming a direct influence on minimum summer flow. Together, these data and Python-based analysis tools provide a framework for identifying the key watershed characteristics that control how streamflow responds to snow from year to year. The package also helps quantify uncertainty in statistical models and assess how snow–streamflow relationships vary across regions and over time. This dataset contains comma-separated values files (.csv), text files (.txt), python code files (.py), figure files (.png), and shapefiles (.cpg, .dbf, .prj, .sbn, .sbx, .shp, .xml). Further details on file contents and MLR execution can be found in the readme file and the FLMD files. 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2026

CHESS 2025: Leaf Area Index (LAI) for meadow, shrub, tree, and understory vegetation

This dataset contains Leaf Area Index (LAI) measurements made as part of the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) during June and July of 2025. Data were collected in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, across three study domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). Field observations of LAI were collected within 72 hours of airborne data collection by the National Ecological Observatory Network’s Aerial Observation Platform (NEON AOP). The NEON AOP collected waveform LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and imaging spectrometer data in 426 spectral bands from the visible to shortwave infrared. LAI measurements were collected using the LICOR LAI-2200C Plant Canopy Analyzer following protocols outlined in the instrument manual (LI-COR 2019). Sampling targeted four distinct vegetation types: meadows, shrubs, trees, and aspen forest understory. We have archived data separately by site type because different field methods were used for each. At meadow sites, measurements were made at the four corners of 1m x 1m plots, with the instrument moving inward toward the center of the plot. At shrub sites, we measured the canopies of individual shrubs. At tree sites, we made measurements within a 10m x 10m subplot centered around a focal tree, with 30 observations taken on a regular grid. At aspen understory sites, we measured overstory trees following the tree protocol and understory herbaceous vegetation following the meadow protocol. All measurements included above-canopy (A) and below-canopy (B) readings, with specific protocols for scattering correction measurements in direct-sun conditions. Data were processed using the R package `rlai` (Worsham 2025). This package includes functions to calculate LAI, gap fraction, apparent clumping factor (Ω), scattering correction, and other canopy metrics. Package contents: Full file descriptions appear in ‘flmd.csv’. Files named according to the convention ‘lai_*_summary_data_cleaned.csv’ contain summary values of LAI, apparent clumping factor (Ωapp), and scattering correction factors for each site. These are the analysis-ready products that most data users will work with. Files named ‘lai_*_metadata_cleaned.csv’ contain additional site-level observations made during field collection. We have also archived intermediate and supplementary data for users who wish to check our processing approach or apply alternative methods. ‘raw_lai_2200C.zip’ contains the raw files as read from the LI-COR instrument, with no processing applied, in TXT format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type, which are further subdivided by sampling area. Filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘intermediate_results.zip’ contains detailed output from the processing routines, in JSON format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘scattering_correction_logs.zip’ contains logfiles from the implementation of Kobayashi et al.'s (2013) scattering correction algorithm. The logfiles report values of several parameters at each iteration of the algorithm, as the model converges toward a stable solution. They are intended for users who want to verify scattering correction performance. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘spot_checks.csv’ reports LAI and other values for a small number of files processed with LI-COR FV2200 software (LI-COR 2013) using the same control parameters as in our R-based approach. Additional metadata are provided in a data dictionary describing column names and definitions (dd.csv), and in a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv). All zip files can be expanded with common archive utilities. TXT, CSV, and JSON files can be ingested into R or Python computing environments or read in common text editor utilities. Geospatial information: Geospatial data for mapping measurement site locations are in the files CHESS_polygons_lai_UTM.geojson, CHESS_polygons_shrub_UTM.geojson, and CHESS_polygons_meadow_UTM.geojson in the companion geospatial package for the 2025 CHESS campaign, ‘CHESS 2025: Location data for field observations and sampling’ (Henderson et al., 2026). CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. Funding Acknowledgement: Field and remote-sensing data acquisition was performed under a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC24K1005). This work was also 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. * Todorov and Worsham are co–first authors.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗