Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Choice model”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2002

A model for plant lighting system selection

A decision model is presented that compares lighting systems for a plant growth scenario and chooses the most appropriate system from a given set of possible choices. The model utilizes a Multiple Attribute Utility Theory approach, and incorporates expert input and performance simulations to calculate a utility value for each lighting system being considered. The system with the highest utility is deemed the most appropriate system. The model was applied to a greenhouse scenario, and analyses were conducted to test the model's output for validity. Parameter variation indicates that the model performed as expected. Analysis of model output indicates that differences in utility among the candidate lighting systems were sufficiently large to give confidence that the model's order of selection was valid.

NASA Center KSC↗
DOE OSTI2025

Challenges in the detection of gases in exoplanet atmospheres

Claims of detections of gases in exoplanet atmospheres often rely on comparisons between models including and excluding specific chemical species. However, the space of molecular combinations available for model construction is vast and highly degenerate. Only a limited subset of these combinations is typically explored for any given detection. As a result, apparent detections of trace gases risk being artefacts of incomplete modelling rather than robust identification of atmospheric constituents, especially in the low-signal-to-noise regime. Here, using the sub-Neptune K2-18 b as a case study, we show that recent biosignature claims vanish when the model space is expanded, with numerous alternatives providing equally good or better fits. We demonstrate that the significance of a claimed detection relies on the choice of models being compared, and that model preference does not in itself imply the presence of a specific gas. In conclusion, we recommend treating model comparisons instead as relative adequacy tests, which should be supported by theoretical predictions and complementary metrics of statistical significance to attribute a signal to a particular gas.

Astronomy and AstroPhysics↗
NASA NTRS1998

Barotropic Tidal Predictions and Validation in a Relocatable Modeling Environment

Under funding from the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO), the Mississippi State University Center for Air Sea Technology (CAST) has been working on developing a Relocatable Modeling Environment(RME) to provide a uniform and unbiased infrastructure for efficiently configuring numerical models in any geographic/oceanic region. Under Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO-CEANO) funding, the model was implemented and tested for NAVOCEANO use. With our current emphasis on ocean tidal modeling, CAST has adopted the Colorado University's numerical ocean model, known as CURReNTSS (Colorado University Rapidly Relocatable Nestable Storm Surge) Model, as the model of choice. During the RME development process, CURReNTSS has been relocated to several coastal oceanic regions, providing excellent results that demonstrate its veracity. This report documents the model validation results and provides a brief description of the Graphic user Interface (GUI).

Mehra, Avichal↗
NASA NTRS1998

Barotropic Tidal Predictions and Validation in a Relocatable Modeling Environment

Under funding from the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the Mississippi State University Center for Air Sea Technology (CAST) has been working on developing a Relocatable Modeling Environment (RME) to provide a uniform and unbiased infrastructure for efficiently configuring numerical models in any geographic or oceanic region. Under Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO) funding, the model was implemented and tested for NAVOCEANO use. With our current emphasis on ocean tidal modeling, CAST has adopted the Colorado University's numerical ocean model, known as CURReNTSS (Colorado University Rapidly Relocatable Nestable Storm Surge) Model, as the model of choice. During the RME development process, CURReNTSS has been relocated to several coastal oceanic regions, providing excellent results that demonstrate its veracity. This report documents the model validation results and provides a brief description of the Graphic user Interface.

Mehra, Avichal↗
DOE OSTI2025

Correcting for Selection Biases in the Determination of the Hubble Constant from Time-Delay Cosmography

The time delay between multiple images of strongly lensed quasars has been used to infer the Hubble constant. The primary systematic uncertainty for time-delay cosmography is the mass-sheet transform (MST), which preserves the lensing observables while altering the inferred ⁠H 0 . The TDCOSMO collaboration used velocity dispersion measurements of lensed quasars and lensed galaxies to infer that mass sheets are present, which decrease the inferred H 0 by 8 per cent. Here, we test the assumption that the density profiles of galaxy–galaxy and galaxy–quasar lenses are the same. We use a composite star-plus-dark-matter mass profile for the parent deflector population and model the selection function for galaxy–galaxy and galaxy–quasar lenses. We find that a power-law density profile with an MST is a good approximation to a two-component mass profile around the Einstein radius, but we find that galaxy–galaxy lenses have systematically higher mass-sheet components than galaxy–quasar lenses. For individual systems, λ int correlates with the ratio of the half-light radius and Einstein radius of the lens. By propagating these results through the TDCOSMO hierarchical inference code, we find that H 0 is lowered by a further 3 per cent. Using a more recent measurement of velocity dispersions and our fiducial model for selection biases, we infer H 0 = 66 ± 4 (stat) ± 1 (model sys) ± 2 (measurement sys) km s -1 Mpc -1 for the TDCOSMO plus SLACS data set. The first residual systematic error is due to plausible alternative choices in modelling the selection function, and the second is an estimate of the remaining systematic error in the measurement of velocity dispersions for SLACS lenses. Accurate time-delay cosmography requires precise velocity dispersion measurements and accurate calibration of selection biases.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
NASA NTRS1974

Chain pooling to minimize prediction errors in subset regression

The existing theory of subset regression is examined, taking into account optimality criteria, small experiments, nonlinear models, colinearities, and special techniques. Approaches based on chain pooling coupled with principal components regression are discussed, giving attention to a comparison of half-normal plotting with chain pooling, a procedure based on prior ordering, deletion under the F-test, the largest of a set of chi-square variates, and principal components regression and model deletion. The choice of a true (population) model for simulations is considered along with the evaluation of the decision procedure and suitable computer programs.

Holms, A. G.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Verifying Implementation of the Dryden Turbulence Model and MIL-F-8785 Gust Gradient

Turbulence modeling in human-in-the-loop simulation is important to assessing aircraft handling qualities and pilot performance and to provide additional realism for pilot training. In the simulation community, the Dryden turbulence spectra is a popular choice for modeling the linear turbulent gusts because its rational form is efficiently reproduced by passing white noise through linear filters. The MIL-F-8785 gust gradients similarly use additional linear filters to model the gradient of the turbulent gust over the wing, and it represents the gust gradients as perturbations to the air-relative rotational rates. The Cockpit Motion Facility at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) models continuous random turbulence using the Dryden one-dimensional spectra and MIL-F-8785 gust gradient. The facility recently reviewed and updated its verification of these models as part of an initiative to improve motion cueing under turbulence. This exercise introduced improved methods for verifying the turbulence models and led to rediscovery of model assumptions that informed improvements to implementation.

Madden, Michael M.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Evaluation of probability density function descriptions for three-component Rayleigh–Taylor mixing

Results from simulations of a three-component Rayleigh–Taylor (RT) mixing problem are presented. These simulations are conducted in heavy–light–heavy and heavy–intermediate–light configurations, and each of these configurations are further considered in high- and low-Reynolds-number regimes. This results in RT-unstable flow with one or both interfaces initially unstable, permitting the influence of problem configuration on the statistical description of three-component RT-driven mixing to be considered. Mass fraction covariances are observed to undergo a sign change through the mixing layer in all four configurations considered. This appears to be unique to the multi-component case and represents another way in which multi-component RT mixing differs from the two-component case. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of joint and marginal probability density function (PDF) descriptions of species concentration are made. Three-, five-, and six-parameter model PDFs are compared against simulation data to assess how accurately they describe the mixing, and it is found that three-component mixing requires at least a five-parameter model PDF to accurately describe the mixing. Notably, the marginal distributions of three-component mixing do not appear to conform to a beta distribution, representing a departure from the classical two-component RT case. In conclusion, statistical neutrality also appears to influence the optimal choice of model PDF, which is found to be a function of problem configuration.

Large-eddy simulation↗
DOE OSTI2025

PowerModel-AI: A First On-the-Fly Machine-Learning Predictor for AC Power Flow Solutions

The real-time creation of machine-learning models via active or on-the-fly learning has attracted considerable interest across various scientific and engineering disciplines. These algorithms enable machines to build models autonomously while remaining operational. Through a series of query strategies, the machine can evaluate whether newly encountered data fall outside the scope of the existing training set. In this study, we introduce PowerModel-AI, an end-to-end machine learning software designed to accurately predict AC power flow solutions. We present detailed justifications for our model design choices and demonstrate that selecting the right input features effectively captures load flow decoupling inherent in power flow equations. Our approach incorporates on-the-fly learning, where power flow calculations are initiated only when the machine detects a need to improve the dataset in regions where the model’s suboptimal performance is based on specific criteria. Otherwise, the existing model is used for power flow predictions. This study includes analyses of five Texas A&M synthetic power grid cases, encompassing the 14-, 30-, 37-, 200-, and 500-bus systems. The training and test datasets were generated using PowerModels.jl, an open-source power flow solver/optimizer developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM, USA.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Interplays In The Rare Earth Element Value Chain

An imbalance problem exists in the rare earth element (REE) market with cerium and lanthanum being more abundant and less valuable than REEs used in permanent magnets such as neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Research has been conducted on new applications for abundant REEs to improve mining economics. However, potential market impacts of these applications on individual REE commodities are unknown. A system dynamics model was built to investigate the impacts of a new aluminum-cerium (Al-Ce) alloy that can theoretically utilize three separate cerium forms: cerium carbonate, cerium oxide, or cerium metal. Cerium carbonate currently possesses the lowest price of the three available forms making it initially the most favorable choice. However, model results showed that cerium oxide could provide the best economics for future Al-Ce alloy deployment because its larger market size buffers major shocks to price.

Severson, Michael [Idaho National Laboratory (INL)↗
NASA NTRS1978

A preference-ordered discrete-gaming approach to air-combat analysis

An approach to one-on-one air-combat analysis is described which employs discrete gaming of a parameterized model featuring choice between several closed-loop control policies. A preference-ordering formulation due to Falco is applied to rational choice between outcomes: win, loss, mutual capture, purposeful disengagement, draw. Approximate optimization is provided by an active-cell scheme similar to Falco's obtained by a 'backing up' process similar to that of Kopp. The approach is designed primarily for short-duration duels between craft with large-envelope weaponry. Some illustrative computations are presented for an example modeled using constant-speed vehicles and very rough estimation of energy shifts.

Kelley, H. J.↗
DOE OSTI2024

AEPF: Attention-Enabled Point Fusion for 3D Object Detection

Current state-of-the-art (SOTA) LiDAR-only detectors perform well for 3D object detection tasks, but point cloud data are typically sparse and lacks semantic information. Detailed semantic information obtained from camera images can be added with existing LiDAR-based detectors to create a robust 3D detection pipeline. With two different data types, a major challenge in developing multi-modal sensor fusion networks is to achieve effective data fusion while managing computational resources. With separate 2D and 3D feature extraction backbones, feature fusion can become more challenging as these modes generate different gradients, leading to gradient conflicts and suboptimal convergence during network optimization. To this end, we propose a 3D object detection method, Attention-Enabled Point Fusion (AEPF). AEPF uses images and voxelized point cloud data as inputs and estimates the 3D bounding boxes of object locations as outputs. An attention mechanism is introduced to an existing feature fusion strategy to improve 3D detection accuracy and two variants are proposed. These two variants, AEPF-Small and AEPF-Large, address different needs. AEPF-Small, with a lightweight attention module and fewer parameters, offers fast inference. AEPF-Large, with a more complex attention module and increased parameters, provides higher accuracy than baseline models. Experimental results on the KITTI validation set show that AEPF-Small maintains SOTA 3D detection accuracy while inferencing at higher speeds. AEPF-Large achieves mean average precision scores of 91.13, 79.06, and 76.15 for the car class’s easy, medium, and hard targets, respectively, in the KITTI validation set. Results from ablation experiments are also presented to support the choice of model architecture.

Chemistry↗
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↗
NASA NTRS2006

An Operational Configuration of the ARPS Data Analysis System to Initialize WRF in the NM'S Environmental Modeling System

The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model is the next generation community mesoscale model designed to enhance collaboration between the research and operational sectors. The NM'S as a whole has begun a transition toward WRF as the mesoscale model of choice to use as a tool in making local forecasts. Currently, both the National Weather Service in Melbourne, FL (NWS MLB) and the Spaceflight Meteorology Group (SMG) are running the Advanced Regional Prediction System (AIRPS) Data Analysis System (ADAS) every 15 minutes over the Florida peninsula to produce high-resolution diagnostics supporting their daily operations. In addition, the NWS MLB and SMG have used ADAS to provide initial conditions for short-range forecasts from the ARPS numerical weather prediction (NWP) model. Both NM'S MLB and SMG have derived great benefit from the maturity of ADAS, and would like to use ADAS for providing initial conditions to WRF. In order to assist in this WRF transition effort, the Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) was tasked to configure and implement an operational version of WRF that uses output from ADAS for the model initial conditions. Both agencies asked the AMU to develop a framework that allows the ADAS initial conditions to be incorporated into the WRF Environmental Modeling System (EMS) software. Developed by the NM'S Science Operations Officer (S00) Science and Training Resource Center (STRC), the EMS is a complete, full physics, NWP package that incorporates dynamical cores from both the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Advanced Research WRF (ARW) and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction's Non-Hydrostatic Mesoscale Model (NMM) into a single end-to-end forecasting system. The EMS performs nearly all pre- and postprocessing and can be run automatically to obtain external grid data for WRF boundary conditions, run the model, and convert the data into a format that can be readily viewed within the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System. The EMS has also incorporated the WRF Standard Initialization (SI) graphical user interface (GUT), which allows the user to set up the domain, dynamical core, resolution, etc., with ease. In addition to the SI GUT, the EMS contains a number of configuration files with extensive documentation to help the user select the appropriate input parameters for model physics schemes, integration timesteps, etc. Therefore, because of its streamlined capability, it is quite advantageous to configure ADAS to provide initial condition data to the EMS software. One of the biggest potential benefits of configuring ADAS for ingest into the EMS is that the analyses could be used to initialize either the ARW or NMM. Currently, the ARPS/ADAS software has a conversion routine only for the ARW dynamical core. However, since the NIvIM runs about 2.5 times faster than the ARW, it is quite advantageous to be able to run an ADAS/NMM configuration operationally due to the increased efficiency.

Case, Jonathan↗
NASA NTRS1984

Implicit Numerical Methods in Meteorology

The development of a fully implicit finite-difference model, whose time step is chosen solely to resolve accurately the physical flow of interest is discussed. The method is based on an operator factorization which reduces the dimensionality of the implicit approach: at each time step only (spatially) one-dimensional block-tridiagonal linear systems must be solved. The scheme uses two time levels and is second-order accurate in time. Compact implicit spatial differences are used, yielding fourth-order accuracy both vertically and horizontally. In addition, the development of a fully interactive computer code is discussed. With this code the user will have a choice of models, with various levels of accuracy and sophistication, which are imbedded, as subsets of the fully implicit 3D code.

Augenbaum, J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ROCKE-3D 2.0: An Updated General Circulation Model for Simulating the Climates of Rocky Planets

We present the second generation of ROCKE-3D (Resolving Orbital and Climate Keys of Earth and Extraterrestrial Environments with Dynamics), the generalized 3-dimensional General Circulation Model (GCM) for use in Solar System and exoplanetary simulations of rocky planet climates. ROCKE-3D version 2.0 is a descendant of GISS ModelE2.1, the flagship GCM of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) assessment. ROCKE-3D is a continuous effort to expand the capabilities of GISS ModelE to handle a broader range of atmospheric conditions, including different atmospheric planet sizes, gravities, pressures, rotation rates, more diverse chemistries and atmospheric compositions, diverse ocean and land distributions and topographies, and potential basic biosphere functions. We present in this release many more supported configurations which can serve as starting points to simulate terrestrial planets of interest. Two different radiation schemes are supported, the GISS radiation, valid for Earth-like planets, and SOCRATES, which is more generalized but requires more CPU resources. In addition, three different atmospheric compositions are supported, three ocean configurations (prescribed, q-flux, and dynamic), and two resolutions: the medium resolution (4 x 5 degrees in latitude x longitude) used in ROCKE-3D 1.0, and the fine resolution, which has double the resolution in the atmosphere and 4 times the resolution in the ocean. We quantify how the different component choices affect model results, and discuss strengths and limitations of using each component, together with how one can select which component to use. ROCKE-3D is publicly available and tutorial sessions are available for the community, greatly facilitating its use by any interested group.

ROCKE-3D↗