Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “uncertainty characterization”

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 OSTI2022

Climate-aware decision-making: lessons for electric grid infrastructure planning and operations

Abstract Climate change poses significant risks to large-scale infrastructure systems and brings considerable uncertainties that challenge historical planning approaches. Here we focus on how climate awareness might be better incorporated into planning and decision-making in the electric power sector. To do so, we consider lessons from decision science literature where researchers have specifically focused on how to make better decisions under uncertainty. We perform a three-part review: of decision science literature on best practices for decision-making under uncertainty, of industry practice documents to understand how new uncertainties may affect the types of decisions electric utilities are making today, and of literature on electricity sector planning under climate change to assess how lessons from decision science might fit into sector-specific analyses. We discuss how characterizations of uncertainty from the decision science literature might guide approaches in the electricity sector to appropriately capture climate-related uncertainties. We also distill three key ideas from the decision science literature that can be incorporated into electricity sector planning to manage these new uncertainties: robustness, adaptive planning, and multi-stakeholder engagement. We offer example recommendations for how these key ideas might be incorporated into one essential type of planning activity, capacity expansion.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Multi‐Model Ensembles in Ecosystem Modeling: Challenges and Best Practices for Decision‐Making

Ecosystem models are increasingly central to the decision-making for environmental policy, conservation planning, and climate-related investments. Yet, the growing reliance on Multi-Model Ensembles (MMEs) of ecosystem models by practitioners and policymakers, sometimes under tight timelines and imperfect information, has frequently outpaced the scientific rigor required to ensure ensemble reliability. Here, MMEs refer to approaches that combine targeted predictions from multiple models with the expectation of improving robustness and quantifying predictive uncertainty. Poorly designed MMEs may create a false sense of confidence and lead to suboptimal policy and market decisions. This perspective argues that robust decision-making-relevant MMEs must be grounded on two pillars: (1) rigorous Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs), which identify inter-model agreement and disagreement, characterize model uncertainties, and evaluate robustness with observationally based benchmarks—MIPs' diagnostic evaluation is so critical that it must be needed to drive MME's decision in model selection and weighting, especially when only a limited number of models available; and (2) co-design by both stakeholders and scientists to ensure that scenarios, metrics and uncertainty requirements provide decision-relevant information. Building upon the past success and lessons from the existing MIPs-MMEs efforts (e.g., climate/Earth system/crop), we derived the theoretical basis for MMEs, addressed their specific challenges in ecosystem modeling, and highlighted proper consideration of model numbers and diversity, risk of model inter-dependence, effective calibration of model parameters, possible overdue of some ecosystem model development, critical roles of open benchmark data across a wide range of conditions, and suggested use of Artificial Intelligence to support MIPs-MMEs. We highlighted the under-recognized opportunity for MIPs and MMEs to drive scientific progress and innovation through identifying better performing models, systematic benchmarking, feedback loops, and targeted model improvement. By following actionable best practice guidelines, MMEs can evolve from ad hoc aggregation of models into a trusted backbone of environmental policy and decision-making.

ecosystem modeling↗
DOE OSTI2026

MAGIC: M arching Cubes Isosurface Uncertainty Visualization for G auss i an Uncertain Data With Spatial C orrelation

Here, in this paper, we study the propagation of data uncertainty through the marching cubes algorithm for isosurface visualization for correlated uncertain data. Consideration of correlation has been shown paramount for avoiding errors in uncertainty quantification and visualization in multiple prior studies. Although the problem of isosurface uncertainty with spatial data correlation has been previously addressed, there are two major limitations to prior treatments. First, there are no analytical formulations for uncertainty quantification of isosurfaces when the data uncertainty is characterized by a Gaussian distribution with spatial correlation. Second, as a consequence of the lack of analytical formulations,existing techniques resort to a Monte Carlo sampling approach, which is expensive and difficult to integrate into visualization tools. To address these limitations, we present a closed-form framework to efficiently derive uncertainty in marching cubes level-sets for Gaussian uncertain data with spatial correlation (MAGIC). To derive closed-form solutions, we leverage the Hinkley's derivation on the ratio of Gaussian distributions. With our analytical framework, we achieve a significant speed-up and enhanced accuracy of uncertainty quantification over classical Monte Carlo methods. We further accelerate our analytical solutions using many-core processors to achieve speed-ups up to 585× and integrability with production visualization tools for broader impact. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our correlation-aware uncertainty framework through experiments on meteorology, urban flow, and astrophysics simulation datasets.

Gaussian↗
DOE OSTI2020

Global land use for 2015–2100 at 0.05° resolution under diverse socioeconomic and climate scenarios

Abstract Global future land use (LU) is an important input for Earth system models for projecting Earth system dynamics and is critical for many modeling studies on future global change. Here we generated a new global gridded LU dataset using the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) and a land use spatial downscaling model, named Demeter, under the five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) scenarios. Compared to existing similar datasets, the presented dataset has a higher spatial resolution (0.05° × 0.05°) and spreads under a more comprehensive set of SSP-RCP scenarios (in total 15 scenarios), and considers uncertainties from the forcing climates. We compared our dataset with the Land Use Harmonization version 2 (LUH2) dataset and found our results are in general spatially consistent with LUH2. The presented dataset will be useful for global Earth system modeling studies, especially for the analysis of the impacts of land use and land cover change and socioeconomics, as well as the characterizing the uncertainties associated with these impacts.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Global land use for 2015-2100 at 0.05° resolution under diverse socioeconomic and climate scenarios

Global future land use (LU) is an important input for Earth system models for projecting Earth system dynamics and is critical for many modeling studies on future global change. Here we generated a new global gridded LU dataset using the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) and a land use spatial downscaling model, named Demeter, under the five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) scenarios. Compared to existing similar datasets, the presented dataset has a higher spatial resolution (0.05°×0.05°) and spreads under a more comprehensive set of SSP-RCP scenarios (in total 15 scenarios), and considers uncertainties from the forcing climates. We compared our dataset with the Land Use Harmonization version 2 (LUH2) dataset and found our results are in general spatially consistent with LUH2. The presented dataset will be useful for global Earth system modeling studies, especially for the analysis of the impacts of land use and land cover change and socioeconomics, as well as the characterizing the uncertainties associated with these impacts.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Risk-Aware Measurement Synchronization and Recovery for DSSE With Heterogeneous Data Sources

Power distribution systems are increasingly integrating heterogeneous sensors with varying data reporting rates and types, which pose challenges to achieving observability at the desired temporal resolution of distribution system state estimation (DSSE). Multisensor failures caused by extreme events exacerbate these issues, introducing substantial uncertainties into DSSE. This article proposes a novel solution to these challenges by ensuring high-resolution system observability despite heterogeneous data sources and multisensor failures. First, a deep learning architecture combining long short-term memory (LSTM) and graph convolutional network (GCN) is employed to synchronize meters with different reporting rates, aiming to achieve system observability. A random-walk-model-based approach is introduced to generate pseudo-measurements while properly characterizing their uncertainties under multisensor failures. Finally, a disaster-risk-informed observability metric (RiOM) is defined to quantify the uncertainty associated with state estimation results. The proposed framework offers deeper insights into the system observability on the fly compared with conventional analysis. The effectiveness of the framework is demonstrated on an IEEE standard test case and a large-scale real-world distribution feeder in mid-Minnesota in the U.S.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

A Review and Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Techniques in Practice

There exist many methods for sensitivity analysis readily available to the practitioner. While each seeks to help the modeler answer the same general question – How do sources of uncertainty or changes in the model inputs relate to uncertainty in the output? – different methods are associated with different assumptions, constraints, and required resources, leading to conclusions that may vary in interpretability and level of detail. Thus, it is crucial that the practitioner selects the desired sensitivity analysis method judiciously, making sure to match the selected approach to the specifics of their problem and to their desired objectives. In this chapter, we provide a practical overview of a collection of widely used, widely available sensitivity analysis methods. We focus on global sensitivity approaches, which seek to characterize how uncertainty in the model output may be allocated to sources of uncertainty in model inputs across the entire input space. Generally, this will require the practitioner to specify a probability distribution over the input space. On the other hand, methods for local sensitivity analysis do not require this specification but they have more limited utility, providing insight into sources of uncertainty associated only with a particular, specified location in the input space. Our hope is that this chapter may serve as a decision-making tool for practitioners, helping to guide the selection of a sensitivity analysis approach that will best fit their needs. To support this goal, we have selected a suite of approaches to cover, which, while not exhaustive, we believe provides a flexible and robust sensitivity analysis toolkit. All methods included are widely used and available in standard software packages.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Industry Requirements for Geomagnetic Disturbance Models

This research project will address the most pressing uncertainties in modeling and measuring the electric power grid effects of geomagnetic disturbances (GMDs) and the E3 portion of nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP). The primary goal is to help decision-makers in the electric power sector have the knowledge and tools they need to most effectively mitigate GMD effects on our nation’s electric grid, with a secondary focus on EMP. Comprehensive modeling, model assessment through sensitivity analysis, and validation with field measurement data will be the primary tasks undertaken. The goal will be a more widespread adoption of these modeling approaches, namely characterizing the uncertainty associated with these models and how that uncertainty will affect decision-making by industry. This document summarizes industry requirements for better decision-making tools, informed by feedback from an industry advisory board. These requirements help guide planning and execution of the project's remaining tasks.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Statistical emulation of a perturbed basal melt ensemble of an ice sheet model to better quantify Antarctic sea level rise uncertainties

Abstract. Antarctic ice shelves are vulnerable to warming ocean temperatures, and some have already begun thinning in response to increased basal melt rates. Sea level is therefore expected to rise due to Antarctic contributions, but uncertainties in its amount and timing remain largely unquantified. In particular, there is substantial uncertainty in future basal melt rates arising from multi-model differences in thermal forcing and how melt rates depend on that thermal forcing. To facilitate uncertainty quantification in sea level rise projections, we build, validate, and demonstrate projections from a computationally efficient statistical emulator of a high-resolution (4 km) Antarctic ice sheet model, the Community Ice Sheet Model version 2.1. The emulator is trained to a large (500-member) ensemble of 200-year-long 4 km resolution transient ice sheet simulations, whereby regional basal melt rates are perturbed by idealized (yet physically informed) trajectories. The main advantage of our emulation approach is that by sampling a wide range of possible basal melt trajectories, the emulator can be used to (1) produce probabilistic sea level rise projections over much larger Monte Carlo ensembles than are possible by direct numerical simulation alone, thereby providing better statistical characterization of uncertainties, and (2) predict the simulated ice sheet response under differing assumptions about basal melt characteristics as new oceanographic studies are published, without having to run additional numerical ice sheet simulations. As a proof of concept, we propagate uncertainties about future basal melt rate trajectories, derived from regional ocean models, to generate probabilistic sea level rise estimates for 100 and 200 years into the future.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Multimodal Bayesian registration of noisy functions using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo

Functional data registration is a necessary processing step for many applications. The observed data can be inherently noisy, often due to measurement error or natural process uncertainty; which most functional alignment methods cannot handle. A pair of functions can also have multiple optimal alignment solutions, which is not addressed in current literature. In this paper, a flexible Bayesian approach to functional alignment is presented, which appropriately accounts for noise in the data without any pre-smoothing required. Additionally, by running parallel MCMC chains, the method can account for multiple optimal alignments via the multi-modal posterior distribution of the warping functions. To most efficiently sample the warping functions, the approach relies on a modification of the standard Hamiltonian Monte Carlo to be well-defined on the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. In this work, this flexible Bayesian alignment method is applied to both simulated data and real data sets to show its efficiency in handling noisy functions and successfully accounting for multiple optimal alignments in the posterior; characterizing the uncertainty surrounding the warping functions.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Geothermal Uncertainty Representation in reV: the Renewable Energy Potential Model

We present a preliminary methodology for including geothermal resource uncertainty into the Renewable Energy Potential model, which estimates potential capacity and costs on a gridded surface at the national scale. The uncertainty outputs characterize the 10th, 50th and 90th percentile for geothermal resources using two energy capacity estimation equations. We then present a method and results that demonstrate how other geologic data layers, which may be indicative of permeability, can be used to inform the mean and standard deviation of the geothermal capacity. We demonstrate how the mean and standard deviation can be defined or partially informed by using collocated regression estimates and estimate errors, respectively . These regression results are from 36 observed geothermal power plants in the Great Basin region and are also used to benchmark the P10-P90 calculations.

exclusions↗
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 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 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 OSTI2022

Metrics as tools for bridging climate science and applications

In climate science and applications, the term “metric” is used to describe the distillation of complex, multifaceted evaluations to summarize the overall quality of a model simulation, or other data product, and/or as a means to quantify some response to climate change. Metrics provide insights into the fidelity of processes and outcomes from climate models and can assist with both differentiating models' representation of variables or processes and informing whether models are “fit for purpose.” Metrics can also provide a valuable reference point for co-production of knowledge between climate scientists and climate impact practitioners. Although continued metric developments enable model developers to better understand the impacts of decisions made in the model design process, metrics also have implications for the characterization of uncertainty and facilitating analyses of underlying physical processes. As a result, comprehensive evaluation with multiple metrics enhances usability of climate information by both scientific and stakeholder communities. Here, this paper presents examples of insights gained from the development and appropriate use of metrics, and provides examples of how metrics can be used to engage with stakeholders and inform decision-making.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Methodology for physics-informed generation of synthetic neutron time-of-flight measurement data

Accurate neutron cross section data are a vital input to the simulation of nuclear systems for a wide range of applications from energy production to national security. The evaluation of experimental data is a key step in producing accurate cross sections. There is a widely recognized lack of reproducibility in the evaluation process due to its artisanal nature and therefore there is a call for improvement within the nuclear data community. This can be realized by automating/standardizing viable parts of the process, namely, parameter estimation by fitting theoretical models to experimental data. This automation effort could greatly benefit from a synthetic data resource. This work leverages problem-specific physics, Monte Carlo sampling, and a general methodology for data synthesis to generate unlimited, labelled experimental cross-section data that is statistically indistinguishable to the observed data. Heuristic and, where applicable, rigorous statistical comparisons to observed data support this claim. The demonstration is based on/limited to transmission measurements at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and energy-differential cross sections in the resolved resonance region (RRR). An open-source software is published alongside this article that executes the complete methodology to produce high-utility synthetic datasets. The goal of this work is to provide an approach and corresponding tool that will allow the evaluation community to begin exploring more data-driven, ML-based solutions to long-standing challenges in the field.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2026

3D seismic imaging of a fracture damage zone controlling reservoir compartmentalization at the Raft River EGS using multi-azimuth walkaway VSP

Accurate imaging of steeply dipping fracture zones in crystalline enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) is critical for constraining permeability architecture and guiding stimulation design. However, such structures remain poorly resolved by conventional surface seismic methods. We present a fully three-dimensional (3D) elastic-waveform inversion-migration workflow applied to multi-azimuth walkaway vertical seismic profiling (VSP) data acquired in a deviated borehole at the Raft River EGS. The workflow integrates first-arrival traveltime tomography, multi-scale elastic waveform inversion (EWI), and elastic least-squares reverse-time migration (ELSRTM) to recover high-resolution compressional-and shear-wave velocity models and to image structural discontinuities in the crystalline basement. The results reveal a laterally continuous low-velocity anomaly, with shear-wave velocity reductions of 25-30%, consistent with fractureinduced mechanical weakening. Two steeply dipping discontinuities bound a 50-80 m wide fracture damage zone. Independent constraints from microseismic clustering and geochemical compartmentalization corroborate the geometry and structural significance of this feature. Synthetic modeling further confirms that structures of this scale are resolvable (~30 m). These findings indicate that the Narrows structure is a distributed fracture damage zone rather than a discrete fault plane. By resolving fracture-zone geometry at the tens-of-meters scale using a single borehole, this workflow provides a practical and transferable approach for improving structural characterization, reducing uncertainty in permeability architecture, and supporting reservoir modeling and stimulation design in fractured crystalline EGS reservoirs.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗