SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “user requirements”

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 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

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 OSTI2025

Recommended Practice: Seamless Retry for Electric Vehicle Charging

This work introduces the concept of seamless retry in the electric vehicle (EV) charging domain. Its primary aim is to enhance the reliability and user experience of EV charging by reducing the frequency of user-required interventions in EV charging. This is achieved through an automated retry mechanism that activates upon encountering errors during the EV charging process.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2026

OpenStudio®-MCP [SWR-26-035]

OpenStudio®-MCP is a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that lets AI assistants perform building energy modeling through natural language. Rather than requiring users to learn the OpenStudio® SDK, EnergyPlus® scripting, or Ruby/Python automation, the server translates conversational requests into sequences of tool calls that create models, design HVAC systems, run simulations, and extract results — all within a single chat session. The server's 124 tools are organized into a skills architecture where each skill encapsulates a domain of building energy modeling (envelope, HVAC, loads, weather, simulation, results) behind typed, LLM-friendly interfaces. High-leverage operations like applying ASHRAE 90.1 baseline systems or generating standards-compliant typical buildings are exposed as single tool calls that internally wire dozens of OpenStudio® objects. Bundled measures from ComStock™ and Openstudio® -common-measures-gem are wrapped with dedicated tools and typed arguments rather than exposed through a generic measure interface, so AI models get consistent, error-resistant recipes without needing to discover measure arguments at runtime. A key design decision is structured results extraction: six SQL-based tools return surgical ~300–1,000 token responses (end-use breakdowns, envelope summaries, HVAC sizing, timeseries data) instead of requiring the AI to parse ~100K-token raw HTML reports, making iterative design exploration practical within context window limits. The codebase is designed as a reference implementation — explicit, well-commented, and modular — so that other simulation engines (EnergyPlus® standalone, TRNSYS, DOE-2) can use it as a template for building their own MCP servers.

Ball, Brian [National Laboratory of the Rockies (N↗

DOE OSTI2025

Reconstruction framework advancements to support streaming for the ePIC detector at the EIC

The ePIC collaboration adopted the JANA2 framework to manage its reconstruction algorithms. This framework has since evolved substantially in response to ePIC’s needs. There have been three main design drivers: integrating cleanly with the Podio-based data models and other layers of the key4hep stack, enabling external configuration of existing components, and supporting timeframe splitting for streaming readout. The result is a unified component model featuring a new declarative interface for specifying inputs, outputs, parameters, services, and resources. This interface enables the user to instantiate, configure, and wire components via an external file. One critical new addition to the component model is a hierarchical decomposition of data boundaries into levels such as Run, Timeframe, PhysicsEvent, and Subevent. Two new component abstractions, Folder and Unfolder, are introduced in order to traverse this hierarchy, e.g. by splitting or merging. The pre-existing components can now operate at different event levels, and JANA2 will automatically construct the corresponding parallel processing topology. This means that a user may write an algorithm once, and configure it at runtime to operate on timeframes or on physics events. Overall, these changes mean that the user requires less knowledge about the framework internals, obtains greater flexibility with configuration, and gains the ability to reuse the existing abstractions in new streaming contexts.

Brei, Nathan [Thomas Jefferson National Accelerato↗

DOE OSTI2024

IRIS-GNN: Leveraging Graph Neural Networks for Scheduling on Truly Heterogeneous Runtime Systems

The diversity of accelerators in computer systems poses significant challenges for software developers, such as managing vendor-specific compiler toolchains, code fragmentation requiring different kernel implementations, and performance portability issues. To address these, the Intelligent Runtime System (IRIS) was developed. IRIS works across various systems, from smartphones to supercomputers, enabling automatic performance scaling based on available accelerators. It introduces abstract tasks for seamless execution transitions between accelerators while ensuring memory consistency and task dependencies. Although IRIS simplifies system details, optimal dynamic scheduling still requires user input to understand workload structures. To address this, we introduce a new scheduling policy for IRIS, termed IRIS-GNN, which is the first IRIS hybrid policy that operates in conjunction with the dynamic policies. This policy employs a Graph-Neural Network (GNN) to conduct Graph Classification of any task graphs submitted to IRIS. This GNN analyzes the structure and attributes of the task graph, categorizing it as either locality, concurrency, or mixed. This classification subsequently guides the selection of the dynamic policy used by IRIS. We provide a comparison of the performance of IRIS-GNN against the complete spectrum of IRIS’s dynamic policies, assess the overhead introduced by the GNN within this scheduling framework, and ultimately explore its practical application in real-world scenarios.

Johnston, Beau↗

DOE OSTI2025

Ocelot: An Interactive, Efficient Distributed Compression-As-a-Service Platform With Optimized Data Compression Techniques

Large volumes of data generated by scientific simulations, genome sequencing, and other applications need to be moved among clusters for data collection/analysis. Data compression techniques have effectively reduced data storage and transfer costs. However, users' requirements on interactively controlling both data quality and compression ratios are non-trivial to fulfill. Here, we propose a novel Compression-as-a-Service (CaaS) platform called Ocelot with four important contributions: (1) It offers real-time visualization, interactive compression, and transfer of scientific datasets. (2) It incorporates new strategies for compressing diverse types of datasets more effectively than traditional methods. (3) It provides an effective method for estimating the compression ratio and execution time of compression tasks. (4) Experiments on multiple real-world datasets on geographically distributed computers show that Ocelot can significantly improve data transfer efficiency with a performance gain of more than 10x in computing clusters with relatively slow networks.

compression as a service (CaaS)↗

DOE OSTI2026

CVEVOLVE

CVEvolve is an agentic AI system for autonomous algorithm discovery for scientific data processing. It creates workflows where large language model agents freely set up and configure development environments and evaluation harnesses, develop and improve data processing algorithms with designed exploration-exploitation balancing mechanisms, log history and findings in a structured database, and run holdout testing to ensure algorithm generalizability. CVEvolve offers a zero-code interface and does not require users to provide structured data and evaluation scripts.

Cherukara, MatthewJoseph [Argonne National Laborat↗

DOE OSTI2024

Road Lidar Dataset for the TxDOT Austin District

This is a road lidar data collection for developing road elevation models and road inundation mapping methodologies, a joint work between ORNL and The University of Texas at Austin. This dataset is generated as part of the flood transportation infrastructure, partly funded by the NOAA CIROH project. ORNL is a project partner for high-performance computing-empowered flood inundation mapping methodology R&D. The dataset is computed using a GPU-accelerated lidar data processing workflow developed at ORNL. The lidar data source is from TxGIO, the state lidar data collection site. The output dataset is in two formats: laz and copc. It is organized by TxDOT's maintenance sections, covering the Austin District. Data size: 3.86 billion road lidar points, 1.67% of the entire lidar data input Projection: EPSG:32614 (WGS84/UTM zone 14N) Website: https://web.corral.tacc.utexas.edu/nfiedata/road3d/austin_district/AustinMaintenanceSections_H_epsg6343_V_epsg5703/ LICENSE FOR USE -- MAPS AND DATA DISCLAIMER This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ MAPS AND DATA DISCLAIMER The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described or information contained on this map or associated series of maps. The data and related map graphics are not legal, land survey or engineering documents and are not intended to be used as such. ORNL gives no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, utility or completeness of this information. The user of these maps and data assumes all responsibility and risk for the use of the maps and data. ORNL disclaims all warranties, representations or endorsements either express or implied, with regard to the information contained in this map product, including, but not limited to, all implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement. This preliminary map product is for research and review purposes only. It is not intended to be used for emergency management operational or life safety decisions at the local or regional governmental level or by the general public. Users requiring information regarding hazardous conditions or meteorological conditions for specific geographic areas should consult directly with their city or county emergency management office.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

Charging Hub Scenario Sheet Screenshot

The Excel-based CHECT tool estimates the LCOC ($/kWh) by charger type (Level 1, Level 2, and DC fast charging) for a given charging hub scenario. CHECT requires users to input certain charging hub scenario parameters, including the number of chargers, daily utilization, and charger replacement frequency by charger type. Additional inputs such as the charging schedule, local utility rates, capital/operational costs, and financial inputs can be customized by the user, or the tool can generate results using appropriate default values from literature for the charging hub scenario and service location(s). Using the above inputs, CHECT performs a robust techno-economic analysis to generate the LCOC by charger type, broken down by cost category (e.g., capital, operational, utility, taxes) for various combinations of charging hub types (multiunit dwelling or public) and ownership models (residential, utility, or private company). It also outputs the annual discounted cash flows and determines the most sensitive input variables. In addition, the tool allows users to easily compare the LCOC across various ownership models or across different states.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2024

A New Understanding of Decarbonizing Industrial Process Heat

Analysis conducted over the last few years has improved our understanding of how industrial process heat is used in the United States. These improvements are important for characterizing the possibilities for industrial decarbonization. However, this analysis has largely been conducted from technical perspective and has remained disconnected from the social processes that underlie how industrial firms may adopt and implement technologies to decarbonize their process heating operations. This presentation introduces the concept of generic and configurational technology systems, and outlines the how the incorporation of user requirements and local contexts are essential for successful implementation of configurational systems. Insights drawn from semi-structured interviews with representatives of industrial firms are used to support the hypothesis that industrial process heat technologies are configurational. The potential implications for strategies to decarbonize process heat are then discussed.

adoption↗

DOE OSTI2026

ECAR: Baseline Characterization Database Verification Report – PCEA Billet 01D3-35

The purpose of this engineering calculations and analysis report (ECAR) is to present data collected in the Baseline Graphite Characterization Program, which is directly tasked with supporting the Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s) research and development efforts on the Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART) Program. This program populates a comprehensive database that reflects the baseline properties of nuclear-grade graphite with regard to individual grade, billet, and position within individual billets. The physical- and mechanical-property information collected will be transferred to the Nuclear Data Management and Analysis System (NDMAS), and that database will help populate the handbook of property data available to member nations of the Generation-IV International Forum. Transfer of these data from the applicable technical lead to the dissemination databases available to other end users requires a full review of the test procedures and data-collection efforts through an analysis of the multiple summary spreadsheets and values being collected. This report represents the analysis for PCEA Billet 01D3-35 and facilitates release of associated data to the NDMAS custodians.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Initial User Study Insights Clarified Community Requirements & Early Feedback on Conceptual Design

The HPDF User Experience (UX) team conducted eight semi-structured interviews with twelve individuals leading data and computing infrastructure work at DOE Office of Science (SC) user facilities or projects. This report presents key takeaways synthesizing community perspectives and needs, along with recommendations for the project. These insights should be considered as conceptual design work continues, early partnerships begin, workflow readiness activities evaluate and enhance key scientific tools, and early access systems are made available to the Office of Science (SC) community. Vigilance in meeting community requirements and ensuring workflow readiness will be needed to ensure HPDF’s success.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2025

Fostering Geothermal Machine Learning Success: Elevating Big Data Accessibility and Automated Data Standardization in the Geothermal Data Repository

The Department of Energy's (DOE's) Geothermal Data Repository (GDR) has implemented improvements to both its data lakes and its data standards and automated data pipelines. The GDR data lakes have reduced storage and compute-related barriers to using large geothermal datasets, enabling these large datasets to be accessed by anyone with a modern computer and internet access. More recently, the GDR has been working to further reduce barriers through streamlining the data intake process, educating users on the process and requirements, and helping users access data from the data lakes. These improvements have augmented the quantity of datasets the GDR is able to accept into its data lakes and have enabled users who are new to cloud tools to access these datasets more easily, overall increasing the accessibility of big geothermal data for use in machine learning and other projects. In addition, the GDR now has built-in data standards and pipelines for drilling data, geospatial data, and distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) data. These standardization efforts aim to enhance the real-world applicability of geothermal machine learning outcomes by improving the quality of training data. Specifically, through standardizing high-value datasets, the GDR is reducing project-specific data curation requirements, thus allowing more time for actual research. By automating this process, the burden of standardization is lifted from the user, ultimately increasing the availability of standardized data. This paper provides an update on recent improvements made to the GDR's data lakes and automated data pipelines, including: (1) streamlining the data lake intake process, (2) better educating users on the process and requirements through a new data lakes page, (3) adding data lake direct access links to GDR data lake submission pages, (4) implementing a DAS data pipeline to convert DAS data uploaded in SEG-Y format to a standardized hierarchical data format v5 (HDF5), (5) extending this pipeline to encompass data in the GDR data lake, (6) adding metadata requirements for geospatial data, (7) making user interface/user experience (UX) enhancements to the data pipelines' documentation pages, and (8) improving the GDR's data standards and pipelines pages to better guide users in ensuring that their data is standardized by the GDR's automated data pipelines. 2024 Geothermal Resources Council. All rights reserved.

accessibility↗

DOE OSTI2024

User-Centric Communication With Aerial Network for 6G: A Reinforcement Learning Approach

Meeting the diverse needs of user verticals requires innovative cellular architectures that can offer additional degrees of freedom to provide on-demand services. The terrestrial user-centric radio access network (UC-RAN) stands out as an excellent choice for this purpose. However, a drawback of UC-RAN is its tendency to prioritize high-priority verticals, often resulting in a subpar quality of experience for low-priority verticals. This issue is particularly exacerbated in hotspot areas. Here, to address this problem, we introduce an aerial network integrated with terrestrial UC-RAN to provide coverage to users which are not served by the terrestrial network. Furthermore, we analyze the impact of key configuration and optimization parameters (COPs), such as location, transmit power, altitude, and beamwidth of aerial base stations (ABSs) on system key performance indicators (KPIs), such as coverage, latency satisfaction, average spectral efficiency, and energy efficiency. We formulate a robust multiobjective function to maximize these KPIs without biasing toward any specific KPI(s). Finally, we propose a deep reinforcement learning optimization framework based on the state-of-the-art soft actor-critic algorithm to control ABS COPs and optimize system KPIs. Experimental evaluations demonstrate that the proposed optimization framework can converge to near-optimal solutions derived from the pseudo brute force in a few thousand epochs.

6G↗

DOE OSTI2026

Fostering Geothermal Machine Learning Success: Elevating Big Data Accessibility and Automated Data Standardization in the Geothermal Data Repository

The Department of Energy's (DOE) Geothermal Data Repository (GDR) has implemented improvements to both its data lakes and its data standards and automated data pipelines. The GDR data lakes have reduced storage and compute-related barriers to using large geothermal datasets, enabling these large datasets to be accessed by anyone with a modern computer and internet access. More recently, the GDR has been working to further reduce barriers through streamlining the data intake process, educating users on the process and requirements, and aiding users in accessing data from the data lakes. These improvements have augmented the quantity of datasets the GDR is able to accept into its data lakes and have enabled users who are new to cloud tools to access these datasets more easily, overall increasing the accessibility of big geothermal data for use in machine learning and other projects. In addition, the GDR now has built-in data standards and pipelines for drilling data, geospatial data, and distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) data. These standardization efforts aim to enhance the real-world applicability of geothermal machine learning outcomes by improving the quality of training data. Specifically, through standardizing high-value datasets, the GDR is reducing project-specific data curation requirements, thus allowing more time for actual research. By automating this process, the burden of standardization is lifted from the user, ultimately increasing the availability of standardized data.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Fostering Geothermal Machine Learning Success: Elevating Big Data Accessibility and Automated Data Standardization in the Geothermal Data Repository: Preprint

accessibility↗