SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “under uncertainty”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2023

Uncertainty Analysis of the NASA Glenn 8- by 6-Foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel 2019 Characterization Test 14-Foot, 5.8 Percent Test Section Porosity

This paper presents methods and results of a measurement uncertainty analysis that was performed for the 8- by 6-foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel located at the NASA Glenn Research Center. The uncertainty analysis is based on data collected during a characterization test following major structural modifications to the facility and upgrades to the facility’s data and control systems. The statistical methods and engineering judgments used to estimate elemental uncertainties are described in this report. The Monte Carlo method of propagating uncertainty was selected to determine the uncertainty of calculated variables of interest. A description of the Monte Carlo method as applied for this analysis is provided. The primary variable of interest (VOI) for this facility is free stream Mach number. In addition to determining the uncertainty in Mach number, the uncertainty in free stream values of static pressure, total pressure, dynamic pressure, total temperature, static temperature, Reynolds number, and air speed were also calculated. Uncertainty results are presented as random (unpredictable variation in repeated measurements), systematic (potential offset between observed and true value), and total (random and systematic combined) uncertainty for Mach number. Systematic uncertainty results are presented for the other VOIs. Individual uncertainty sources are presented both dimensionally and as percent contributions to uncertainty in all VOIs, to aid in the identification of primary uncertainty sources.

Uncertainty Analysis↗

DOE OSTI2020

Uncertainty analysis of correlated parameters in automated reaction mechanism generation

Abstract Uncertainty analysis is a useful tool for inspecting and improving detailed kinetic mechanisms because it can identify the greatest sources of model output error. Owing to the very nonlinear relationship between kinetic and thermodynamic parameters and computed concentrations, model predictions can be extremely sensitive to uncertainties in some parameters while uncertainties in other parameters can be irrelevant. Error propagation becomes even more convoluted in automatically generated kinetic models, where input uncertainties are correlated through kinetic rate rules and thermodynamic group values. Local and global uncertainty analyses were implemented and used to analyze error propagation in Reaction Mechanism Generator (RMG), an open‐source software for generating kinetic models. A framework for automatically assigning parameter uncertainties to estimated thermodynamics and kinetics was created, enabling tracking of correlated uncertainties. Local first‐order uncertainty propagation was implemented using sensitivities computed natively within RMG. Global uncertainty analysis was implemented using adaptive Smolyak pseudospectral approximations as implemented in the MIT Uncertainty Quantification Library to efficiently compute and construct polynomial chaos expansions to approximate the dependence of outputs on a subset of uncertain inputs. Cantera was used as a backend for simulating the reactor system in the global analysis. Analyses were performed for a phenyldodecane pyrolysis model. Local and global methods demonstrated similar trends; however, many uncertainties were significantly overestimated by the local analysis. Both local and global analyses show that correlated uncertainties based on kinetic rate rules and thermochemical groups drastically reduce a model's degrees of freedom and have a large impact on the determination of the most influential input parameters. These results highlight the necessity of incorporating uncertainty analysis in the mechanism generation workflow.

Gao, Connie W.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Characterizing Epistemic Uncertainty for Launch Vehicle Designs

NASA Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) has the task of estimating the aleatory (randomness) and epistemic (lack of knowledge) uncertainty of launch vehicle loss of mission and crew risk, and communicating the results. Launch vehicles are complex engineered systems designed with sophisticated subsystems that are built to work together to accomplish mission success. Some of these systems or subsystems are in the form of heritage equipment, while some have never been previously launched. For these cases, characterizing the epistemic uncertainty is of foremost importance, and it is anticipated that the epistemic uncertainty of a modified launch vehicle design versus a design of well understood heritage equipment would be greater. For reasons that will be discussed, standard uncertainty propagation methods using Monte Carlo simulation produce counter intuitive results, and significantly underestimate epistemic uncertainty for launch vehicle models. Furthermore, standard PRA methods, such as Uncertainty-Importance analyses used to identify components that are significant contributors to uncertainty, are rendered obsolete, since sensitivity to uncertainty changes are not reflected in propagation of uncertainty using Monte Carlo methods. This paper provides a basis of the uncertainty underestimation for complex systems and especially, due to nuances of launch vehicle logic, for launch vehicles. It then suggests several alternative methods for estimating uncertainty and provides examples of estimation results. Lastly, the paper describes how to implement an Uncertainty-Importance analysis using one alternative approach, describes the results, and suggests ways to reduce epistemic uncertainty by focusing on additional data or testing of selected components.

Novack, Steven D.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Characterizing Epistemic Uncertainty for Launch Vehicle Designs

NASA Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) has the task of estimating the aleatory (randomness) and epistemic (lack of knowledge) uncertainty of launch vehicle loss of mission and crew risk and communicating the results. Launch vehicles are complex engineered systems designed with sophisticated subsystems that are built to work together to accomplish mission success. Some of these systems or subsystems are in the form of heritage equipment, while some have never been previously launched. For these cases, characterizing the epistemic uncertainty is of foremost importance, and it is anticipated that the epistemic uncertainty of a modified launch vehicle design versus a design of well understood heritage equipment would be greater. For reasons that will be discussed, standard uncertainty propagation methods using Monte Carlo simulation produce counter intuitive results and significantly underestimate epistemic uncertainty for launch vehicle models. Furthermore, standard PRA methods such as Uncertainty-Importance analyses used to identify components that are significant contributors to uncertainty are rendered obsolete since sensitivity to uncertainty changes are not reflected in propagation of uncertainty using Monte Carlo methods.This paper provides a basis of the uncertainty underestimation for complex systems and especially, due to nuances of launch vehicle logic, for launch vehicles. It then suggests several alternative methods for estimating uncertainty and provides examples of estimation results. Lastly, the paper shows how to implement an Uncertainty-Importance analysis using one alternative approach, describes the results, and suggests ways to reduce epistemic uncertainty by focusing on additional data or testing of selected components.

Novack, Steven D.↗

DOE OSTI2024

DeepUQ: Assessing the Aleatoric Uncertainties from two Deep Learning Methods

Assessing the quality of aleatoric uncertainty estimates from uncertainty quantification (UQ) deep learning methods is important in scientific contexts, where uncertainty is physically meaningful and important to characterize and interpret exactly. We systematically compare aleatoric uncertainty measured by two UQ techniques, Deep Ensembles (DE) and Deep Evidential Regression (DER). Our method focuses on both zero-dimensional (0D) and two-dimensional (2D) data, to explore how the UQ methods function for different data dimensionalities. We investigate uncertainty injected on the input and output variables and include a method to propagate uncertainty in the case of input uncertainty so that we can compare the predicted aleatoric uncertainty to the known values. We experiment with three levels of noise. The aleatoric uncertainty predicted across all models and experiments scales with the injected noise level. However, the predicted uncertainty is miscalibrated to $\rm{std}(\sigma_{\rm al})$ with the true uncertainty for half of the DE experiments and almost all of the DER experiments. The predicted uncertainty is the least accurate for both UQ methods for the 2D input uncertainty experiment and the high-noise level. While these results do not apply to more complex data, they highlight that further research on post-facto calibration for these methods would be beneficial, particularly for high-noise and high-dimensional settings.

Nevin, Rebecca↗

NASA NTRS2019

Uncertainty Analysis of the CE-22 Advanced Nozzle Test Facility

This paper presents methods and results of a detailed measurement uncertainty analysis that was performed for the Advanced Nozzle Test Facility, CE-22, located at the NASA Glenn Research Center. Results for the uncertainty in thrust and flow coefficients, in addition to other variables of interest, are provided. Results are presented separately as random uncertainty (characterizing errors inherent to instrument or measurement environment, impacting repeatability), systematic uncertainty (capturing inaccuracies due to measurement process, calibration, installation effects or other sources which may introduce bias), and total combined uncertainty. The statistical methods and engineering judgments used to estimate elemental uncertainties are described. The analysis tool MANTUS (Measurement Analysis Tool for Uncertainty in Systems) was used to quantify instrumentation system uncertainty, and statistical analysis and engineering judgment were used to quantify other random and systematic uncertainty sources. The Monte Carlo method was used to propagate systematic and random elemental uncertainties to determine the uncertainties of various calculated variables of interest.

data quality↗

DOE OSTI2023

How does uncertainty of soil organic carbon stock affect the calculation of carbon budgets and soil carbon credits for croplands in the U.S. Midwest?

Cropland carbon budget depicts the amount of carbon flowing in and out of agroecosystems and the changes in carbon stocks of soil and living biomass during the same period. Soil carbon credit is the additional change in soil carbon stock under certain farming practices compared with the business-as-usual practices. Accurately calculating cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit is critical to assessing climate change mitigation potential in agroecosystems. The calculation of cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit is sensitive to local soil and climatic conditions, especially initial soil organic carbon (SOC) stock, which is determined by both SOC concentration (SOC%) and bulk density (Bulk_Density). SOC stock data are either from soil sampling or gridded public survey data. In agroecosystem models, SOC stock data are a key model input for quantifying cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit. However, various types and degrees of uncertainties exist in SOC stock datasets, which propagate to the quantification of SOC stock change. In particular, a large discrepancy is found in two widely used SOC stock datasets — Rapid Carbon Assessment dataset (RaCA) and Gridded Soil Survey Geographic Database (gSSURGO) — in the U.S. Midwest, with a relative difference (quantified using Normalized Root Mean Square Error, NRMSE) of 48.0% for 0–30 cm SOC stock between the two datasets. It remains largely unclear how uncertainty in SOC stocks affects the calculation of cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit. To address this question, we used a well-validated process-based agroecosystem model, ecosys, to assess the impacts of SOC stock uncertainty on carbon budget and soil carbon credit calculation in the U.S. Midwestern corn-soybean rotation systems. Our results reveal the following findings: (1) A sizable discrepancy exists in simulated cropland carbon budget between using gSSURGO and using RaCA for their SOC% and Bulk_Density as model inputs, with a Pearson correlation coefficient (r) of only 0.4 for simulated change of SOC stock (ΔSOC) using these two different soil datasets. (2) Simulated cropland carbon budget components were more sensitive to initial SOC% than to Bulk_Density. For example, the upper and lower quartiles of multi-year averaged ΔSOC were –29.8 and 4.8 gC/m 2 /year for the selected counties respectively, with an uncertainty of 13.7 and 0.7 gC/m 2 /year induced by uncertainties in initial SOC% and Bulk_Density, respectively. (3) Both simulated ΔSOC and its uncertainty were negatively correlated with initial SOC%, whereas ΔSOC was negatively correlated with air temperature, and ΔSOC uncertainty was positively correlated with air temperature. (4) The uncertainty of calculated soil carbon credits was much smaller compared with the uncertainty of calculated absolute carbon budgets assuming the same SOC stock uncertainty level in the inputs. Specifically, in our assessment comparing planting cover crops vs no cover crop, the uncertainty of calculated soil carbon credits induced by initial SOC% uncertainty was less than 4% (relative to the quantified value of the soil carbon credits) for 90% of the cases. Our analysis highlights that high accuracy measurement of SOC% as inputs is needed for the calculation of cropland carbon budgets; however, soil carbon credit quantification is much less sensitive to the initial SOC% inputs, and the current publicly available soil datasets (e.g., gSSURGO) are largely suitable for the calculation of soil

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Uncertainty analysis of steady-state measurements with a hot-filament type calorimetric emissometer

Calorimetric emissometers measure total hemispherical emissivity by measuring the heat transferred from a heated sample to its surroundings under a vacuum. The accuracy of emissometers standardized by the ASTM C835-06 are well understood. This work uses the Guide to the Evaluation of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) for the propagation uncertainties for an ASTM compliant emissometer. The GUM method was able to develop a measurement model and expressions to determine the uncertainty for other emissometers of this type. Data on ‘as-received’ Hastelloy X was used to develop a detailed uncertainty analysis of the emissivity measurement. Data on ‘as-received’ SS 347 and sandblasted A387 Gr. 91 and previous data by the group on A508/A533B were used to determine uncertainty over the ranges 0.16 to 0.81. For all samples, relative uncertainties in emissivities varied from 0.77% to 2.5% when using a fluxgate magnetometer sensor (FMS) to measure the DC heating current. Data on Hastelloy X using a Hall-effect sensor for DC current and low alloy steel showed the DC current and voltage across the test section to be dominate sources of uncertainty. When these sources were reduced, the specimen temperature and the surface area of the test sections were main sources of uncertainty in the emissivity, especially at higher temperatures. As thermal expansion of the surface was considered in the calculations, correlation between specimen temperature and surface area was examined. It was found to be a small contribution to emissivity's uncertainty despite the differences in linear CTE and its uncertainty for the materials analyzed in this study. For low temperatures, the chamber temperature can be a significant source of uncertainty if not sufficiently cooled. The GUM was also briefly compared to uncertainty from the 2nd and 3rd expansions of the Taylor series. We found that the results were the same when rounding to two significant figures.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2022

Nuclear data uncertainty propagation applied to the versatile test reactor conceptual design

We report the Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) currently under development is a 300 MWth sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) fueled with ternary metal alloy fuel, which aims to accelerate the testing of advanced nuclear fuels, materials, instrumentation, and sensors in high flux environments that are necessary to license the next generation of advanced reactor concepts. To support the VTR design process, uncertainties associated with the nuclear data has been propagated through the reactor core neutronics calculation to global parameters of interest, such as the core multiplication factor, kinetic parameters, and various reactivity feedback coefficients, following the sensitivity based uncertainty propagation approach. By folding the sensitivity coefficients, separately computed by the generalized perturbation theory code PERSENT and Monte Carlo code Serpent 2, with the variance-covariance matrices from COMMARA-2.0, we obtain the reaction-wise, isotope-wise, and overall uncertainties for each response of interest due to nuclear data uncertainty. With Serpent 2, the statistical error of the uncertainty is obtained by propagating the statistical error of the sensitivity coefficients through the same process using a newly developed uncertainty propagation method. From both codes, the overall top uncertainty contributors are found to be the cross section of Fe-56 elastic scattering, Na-23 elastic scattering, and U 238 inelastic scattering. The large contributions of the Fe-56 elastic scattering cross sections to global parameters are due to its relatively large relative uncertainty of 5–10% in nuclear data and the large volume of Fe-containing reflector assemblies in the fairly compact VTR core design. Both codes agreed well for the overall uncertainty estimates of all responses of interest, except the delayed neutron fraction, prompt neutron generation time, and the coolant density feedback coefficient, where Serpent 2 yielded a much larger value than PERSENT due to the large statistical error of sensitivity coefficients. The calculated uncertainties are also compared to those associated with other SFR cores. Another outcome of this study is a variance-covariance matrix of reactivity coefficients, which can be used in the subsequent uncertainty propagation to the system level to investigate the impact of identified uncertainties on system responses in the safety analysis.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Role of uncertainties in protecting ecological resources during remediation and restoration

Cleanup of contaminated waste sites is a National priority to protect human health and the environment, while restoring land to productive uses. While there are uncertainties with under standing risk to individuals from exposure, the aim of this study was to focus on uncertainties and complexities for ecological systems, complicated by hundreds of species occupying any remediation site which participate in multiple-interacting food webs. The ability to better predict the effectiveness of remediation in fostering future ecosystems might facilitate remedy selection and improve strategic environmental management. This investigation examined (1) uncertainties in ecosystem processes, (2) uncertainties in exposure from contamination before remediation, and (3) uncertainties during remediation. Two Department of Energy sites Hanford Site and Savannah River Site were used as case studies to illustrate how the uncertainties affect eco-receptors. Several types of ecological, physical, and human dimension uncertainties are defined. Ecological uncertainties include temporal, spatial, individual, developmental, and exogenous types. Physical uncertainties are weather-related, watershed variations, slope/aspect, soil/sediment structure and form, unforeseen events, and temporal patterns. Human dimension uncertainties include current land use, future land use, extractive and non-extractive recreation. The effects of remedial strategies varied between the two sites because Hanford is a primarily arid shrub-steppe ecotype, while Savannah River is a wet forest ecotype. Defining the associated ecological sensitivities and uncertainties and providing examples might help policy-makers, managers, planners, and contractors to be aware of issues to consider throughout planning, remediation, and restoration. Adding ecological uncertainty analysis to risk evaluations and remediation planning is analogous to using safety factors in human health risk assessment.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2025

Yes, No, Maybe So: Human Factors Considerations for Fostering Calibrated Trust in Foundation Models Under Uncertainty

High-stakes analytical environments require analysts to evaluate evidence and generate conclusions to inform critical decisions often under conditions of uncertainty. Probabilistic decision-making based on incomplete or inaccurate information can reduce productivity, compromise national interests, and endanger public safety. Researchers are developing expert systems built on foundation models (FMs) to support analysts’ decision-making processes by enabling human-artificial intelligence (AI) teaming, in part through the quantification and expression of uncertainty information. As FMs continue to mature, it is imperative to correspondingly consider analysts’ needs for appropriately interpreting and using uncertainty information. However, prior research indicates that it remains unclear how analysts engage with FM-generated uncertainty information and the extent to which these interactions influence trust in, and reliance on, expert systems. We plan to review the state of the science and conduct an exploratory, qualitative study to (a) understand how properly communicated uncertainty can foster calibrated trust and appropriate reliance and (b) identify approaches for effectively conveying FM-generated uncertainty information during analytical workflows. We will administer semi-structured interviews with analysts from a specific high-stakes analytical environment to collect their current experiences with job-related uncertainty and their impressions when viewing FM-generated uncertainty information. During the interview protocol, participants will be presented with several different FM outputs and invited to discuss their thoughts and beliefs about the uncertainty information displayed. Participants may provide insights into how trust and reliance may be influenced by uncertainty. The results of this study will help us to better understand how analysts currently interpret and use uncertainty information. Our findings may inform human factors recommendations for effectively conveying uncertainty information to foster calibrated trust in, and appropriate reliance on, expert systems. Interaction designers and FM developers can use this knowledge to enhance human-AI teaming and ensure the responsible deployment of FM-based expert systems in analytical workflows.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Quantifying Effects of Departure and Flight Time Uncertainty on Urban Air Mobility Operations

Demand capacity balancing is a key mechanism for maintaining safe and efficient Urban Air Mobility (UAM) operations. However, uncertainties such as departure delays and flight time variation may reduce the effectiveness of algorithms used for balancing and detrimentally impact the safety and efficiency of UAM operations. In this paper, the effects of these uncertainties on UAM operations are quantified by modeling a distribution of departure and flight time errors. A route network in the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area was used to simulate traffic demand with and without uncertainty. Simulations were conducted with three main models of uncertainty – first uncertainty in departure time delay resulting in late takeoffs, second with uncertainty in flight times in addition to departure delays, and finally, uncertainty in departure times that cause either late or early takeoffs. Each of these simulations were performed using varied standard deviations to fully understand the effects of uncertainties. Results from these simulations were compared to a baseline simulation using the same parameters, but without any uncertainty. The results suggest that both safety and efficiency are significantly impacted by uncertainty even with relatively low uncertainty introduced. These results work towards quantifying the effects of uncertainty in flight scheduling for UAM. They will also aid in the further development of the demand capacity balancing algorithms for UAM operations and associated air traffic management.

Urban Air Mobility↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Quantifying the Effects of Departure and Flight Time Uncertainty on Urban Air Mobility Operations

Urban Air Mobility↗

DOE OSTI2021

Processing Aleatory and Epistemic Uncertainties in Experimental Data From Sparse Replicate Tests of Stochastic Systems for Real-Space Model Validation

This paper presents a practical methodology for propagating and processing uncertainties associated with random measurement and estimation errors (that vary from test-to-test) and systematic measurement and estimation errors (uncertain but similar from test-to-test) in inputs and outputs of replicate tests to characterize response variability of stochastically varying test units. Also treated are test condition control variability from test-to-test and sampling uncertainty due to limited numbers of replicate tests. These aleatory variabilities and epistemic uncertainties result in uncertainty on computed statistics of output response quantities. The methodology was developed in the context of processing experimental data for “real-space” (RS) model validation comparisons against model-predicted statistics and uncertainty thereof. The methodology is flexible and sufficient for many types of experimental and data uncertainty, offering the most extensive data uncertainty quantification (UQ) treatment of any model validation method the authors are aware of. It handles both interval and probabilistic uncertainty descriptions and can be performed with relatively little computational cost through use of simple and effective dimension- and order-adaptive polynomial response surfaces in a Monte Carlo (MC) uncertainty propagation approach. A key feature of the progressively upgraded response surfaces is that they enable estimation of propagation error contributed by the surrogate model. Sensitivity analysis of the relative contributions of the various uncertainty sources to the total uncertainty of statistical estimates is also presented. Finally, the methodologies are demonstrated on real experimental validation data involving all the mentioned sources and types of error and uncertainty in five replicate tests of pressure vessels heated and pressurized to failure. Simple spreadsheet procedures are used for all processing operations.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

NASA NTRS1995

Calculation of surface and top of atmosphere radiative fluxes from physical quantities based on ISCCP data sets. 1: Method and sensitivity to input data uncertainties

The largest uncertainty in upwelling shortwave (SW) fluxes (approximately equal 10-15 W/m(exp 2), regional daily mean) is caused by uncertainties in land surface albedo, whereas the largest uncertainty in downwelling SW at the surface (approximately equal 5-10 W/m(exp 2), regional daily mean) is related to cloud detection errors. The uncertainty of upwelling longwave (LW) fluxes (approximately 10-20 W/m(exp 2), regional daily mean) depends on the accuracy of the surface temperature for the surface LW fluxes and the atmospheric temperature for the top of atmosphere LW fluxes. The dominant source of uncertainty is downwelling LW fluxes at the surface (approximately equal 10-15 W/m(exp 2)) is uncertainty in atmospheric temperature and, secondarily, atmospheric humidity; clouds play little role except in the polar regions. The uncertainties of the individual flux components and the total net fluxes are largest over land (15-20 W/m(exp 2)) because of uncertainties in surface albedo (especially its spectral dependence) and surface temperature and emissivity (including its spectral dependence). Clouds are the most important modulator of the SW fluxes, but over land areas, uncertainties in net SW at the surface depend almost as much on uncertainties in surface albedo. Although atmospheric and surface temperature variations cause larger LW flux variations, the most notable feature of the net LW fluxes is the changing relative importance of clouds and water vapor with latitude. Uncertainty in individual flux values is dominated by sampling effects because of large natrual variations, but uncertainty in monthly mean fluxes is dominated by bias errors in the input quantities.

Zhang, Y.-C.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Assessing Uncertainties of a Geophysical Approach to Estimate Surface Fine Particulate Matter Distributions from Satellite-Observed Aerosol Optical Depth

Health impact analyses are increasingly tapping the broad spatial coverage of satellite aerosol optical depth (AOD) products to estimate human exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5). We use a forward geophysical approach to derive ground-level PM2.5 distributions from satellite AOD at 1 km2(exp) resolution for 2011 over the northeastern US by applying relationships between surface PM2.5 and column AOD (calculated offline from speciated mass distributions) from a regional air quality model (CMAQ; 12×12 km2(exp) horizontal resolution). Seasonal average satellite-derived PM2.5 reveals more spatial detail and best captures observed surface PM2.5 levels during summer. At the daily scale, however, satellite-derived PM2.5 is not only subject to measurement uncertainties from satellite instruments, but more importantly to uncertainties in the relationship between surface PM2.5 and column AOD. Using 11 ground-based AOD measurements within 10 km of surface PM2.5 monitors, we show that uncertainties in modeled PM2.5∕AOD can explain more than 70 % of the spatial and temporal variance in the total uncertainty in daily satellite-derived PM2.5 evaluated at PM2.5 monitors. This finding implies that a successful geophysical approach to deriving daily PM2.5 from satellite AOD requires model skill at capturing day-to-day variations in PM2.5∕AOD relationships. Overall, we estimate that uncertainties in the modeled PM2.5∕AOD lead to an error of 11 µg m−3(exp) in daily satellite-derived PM2.5, and uncertainties in satellite AOD lead to an error of 8 µg m−3(exp). Using multi-platform ground, airborne, and radiosonde measurements, we show that uncertainties of modeled PM2.5∕AOD are mainly driven by model uncertainties in aerosol column mass and speciation, while model representation of relative humidity and aerosol vertical profile shape contributes some systematic biases. The parameterization of aerosol optical properties, which determines the mass extinction efficiency, also contributes to random uncertainty, with the size distribution being the largest source of uncertainty and hygroscopicity of inorganic salt the second largest. Future efforts to reduce uncertainty in geophysical approaches to derive surface PM2.5 from satellite AOD would thus benefit from improving model representation of aerosol vertical distribution and aerosol optical properties, to narrow uncertainty in satellite-derived PM2.5.

aerosol optical depth↗

DOE OSTI2020

Applying a Template of Expected Uncertainties to Updating 239 Pu(n,f) Cross-section Covariances in the Neutron Data Standards Database

Templates of uncertainties expected in specific measurement types were recently developed. One aim of these templates is to help evaluators in identifying (1) missing or suspiciously low uncertainties and (2) missing correlations between uncertainties of the same and different experiments, when estimating covariances for experimental data employed in their evaluations. These templates also provide realistic estimates of standard deviations and correlations for a particular uncertainty source and measurement type that can be used by evaluators in situations where they are not supplied by the experimenters. This information allows for a more comprehensive uncertainty analysis across all measurements considered in an evaluation and, thus, more realistic evaluated covariances. Here, in this work, we extend a template that is applicable to uncertainties expected in neutron-induced fission, (n,f), cross-section measurements. It is applied to improving covariances of 239 Pu(n,f) cross-section measurements in the database underlying the Neutron Data Standards evaluations. This particular example was chosen since this evaluation is primarily based on experimental information. Also, some uncertainties of individual 239 Pu(n,f) cross-section experiments in this database were suspected to be underestimated. The evaluated uncertainties obtained after updating the covariances in the database by means of the template indeed do increase compared to their original values. Even more importantly, the evaluated mean values change noticeably. These modified cross sections impact application calculations significantly, as is demonstrated by employing them in simulations of the effective neutron multiplication factor for a few selected critical assemblies. However, this updated evaluated 239 Pu(n,f) cross section should not be interpreted as the final one that should replace values of the current Neutron Data Standards project. Evaluations for the Neutron Data Standards of the 239 Pu(n,f) cross section must be linked to many other observables included in the associated database, most notably to cross sections for 235 U(n,f), but also to those for 10 B(n, α ), 6 Li(n,t), 238 U(n,f), and 238 U(n, γ ), because of included measurements of the 239 Pu(n,f) cross section that appear as ratios to these reactions. Some of these other reactions are correlated to further observables in the database. Hence, updating uncertainties of data sets of any of these observables can potentially impact the 239 Pu(n,f) cross section. Uncertainties for all measurements of these linked physical observables have to be updated before a comprehensive evaluation of the 239 Pu(n,f) cross section and its corresponding uncertainties can be provided.

239Pu Neutron-induced fission cross-section↗

DOE OSTI2023

Influence of data uncertainty on cold season threshold-based climate indices

Climate indices are used to reduce the complex climate system and its changes to simple measures. The data basis – whether observational data or climate model data – to which the climate indices are applied, is usually subject to uncertainties. For threshold-based climate indices, the data uncertainty influences the threshold value, and, hence, the uncertainty can influence the values for the climate index. What the actual impacts of these uncertainties are on threshold-based climate indices is examined in this paper. The focus is not only on the climate model uncertainty, but also on the observational data uncertainty. The general sensitivity of each of the chosen climate indices to arbitrary changes in the threshold is studied. This shows a higher sensitivity of indices assessing extremes (ice days, heavy precipitation days) to changes in the threshold than indices that integrate a quantity over a given time interval (coldsum, consecutive days). For assessing an ensemble of climate model data with respect to their ability to reproduce the index values for current climate, the reference data uncertainty is applied to the chosen threshold-based climate indices by changing their threshold value by its corresponding uncertainty. It is shown that the climate model uncertainty can be within the range of the reference data uncertainty. When using threshold-based climate indices to assess changes in future climate periods, uncertainties should always be taken into account and ideally corrected in an appropriate way. This is especially important for indices that assess extremes.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗