Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
104
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
104 results for “State estimation”
Dataset of "Advanced machine learning techniques for State-of-Health estimation in lithium-ion batteries: A comparative study"
This research focuses on State-of-Health (SOH) estimation of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries to enhance lifespan and reliability. Using Samsung INR18650-35E cells, 600 cycles were analyzed with machine learning (ML) techniques, including Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), Support Vector Regression (SVR), Feed-Forward Neural Network (FFNN) and Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS). Input features from charging and discharging cycles were selected with Pearson Correlation Analysis (PCA) and Exhaustive Search (ES) to optimize inputs for each ML method. Models were tested on datasets of varying sizes to evaluate performance and overfitting, including an experiment where SOH estimation of one battery was performed using training data from another. The findings highlight each model's strengths and limitations, guiding their application in battery health prediction.
ECCO Iter22 Global Ocean State Estimate - 1 January 2004 to 30 April 2005
<p>Time series of global ocean temperature, salinity, and sound speed derived from the “Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean" (ECCO) program Iter22 state estimates. The sound speed fields were computed for simulation of acoustic propagation over basin scales or longer in a realistic oceanic environment. These estimates were computed in 2010 by the JPL-MIT-SIO ECCO program. <br>Original link: http://ecco2.jpl.nasa.gov/data9/cube/iter22/lat_lon/quart_80S_80N/THETA/ , now defunct.</p> <p>The solution is mesoscale permitting. The solution was obtained on a cube sphere grid between 80S and 80N with 18-km horizontal grid spacing and 50 vertical levels (Menemenlis et al., 2005, NASA supercomputer improves prospects for ocean <br>climate research, Eos Trans., AGU 86, 89, 95–96.). State estimates were averaged over a 3-day interval. File 003 is averaged over 2004/1/1 -- 2004/1/3. Three-day-mean temperature and salinity profiles from the iter22 solution were provided on 1/4 degree <br>grid for the period 1 January 2004 to 30 April 2005. There are 162 snapshots at 3-day intervals. </p> <p>Depths were decimated to the standard 33 depths of the World Ocean Atlas to 5500 m. YearDay 1 is 1 January 1992. The number of the filename indicates the yearday in 2004. In situ temperature was computed from model potential temperature. Sound speed was computed using the Del Grosso sound speed equation. Original model profiles descended only to the model sea floor. Temperature, salinity and sound speed were filled in on a uniform grid using nearest neighbor to 5500 m depth. Values on a regular grid make life easier. Product documented in Dushaw and Menemenlis, 2014, Antipodal acoustic thermometry: 1960, 2004, Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 86, 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.824 2013.12.008.</p> <p>Each snapshot is stored as a netcdf 4 file. Latitude, Longitude, Depth, and YearDay variables given separately in sspgrid.nc . <br>N.B.: Values in the files are stored as 32-bit or 16-bit integers to save disk space:</p> <p>Sound Speed: saved as "round( (c-1000)*1000 )", so to get actual c: c=1000. + double(c)/1000. <br>Sound speed is stored to 3 decimal places as a 32-bit integer.</p> <p>Temperature: saved as "round( (T-10)*1000 )", so to get actual T: T=10. + double(T)/1000. <br>Temperature is stored to 3 decimal places as a 16-bit integer. Note that abyssal temperature can sometimes be negative.</p> <p>Salinity: saved as "round( (S-10)*1000 )", so to get actual S: S=10. + double(S)/1000. <br>Salinity is stored to 3 decimal places as a 16-bit integer.</p> <p>Data directory also has two matlab routines: get_section.m and dist.m. get_section.m shows how to load the files, compute the physical variable from the stored value, and compute a section of ssp, T, or S. dist.m is a utility for computing geodesics; it relies on R. Pawlowitz's m_map package which can be downloaded freely from his University of Vancouver web page.</p> <p>$ md5sum *tgz <br>53ca3621f422b89c599c92fbab71d2fc S_ecco_iter22.tgz (2.99 GB)<br>a9e9109b6dae7355bf2fa0926d436d9a ssp_ecco_iter22.tgz (6.09 GB)<br>0cb8d1c2cdee4c7377353dff722ece34 T_ecco_iter22.tgz (4.33 GB)</p>
Arctic Ocean state estimates for 2013 using the GECCO model
<p>The dataset contains the 2013 data of a 10-year ocean synthesis (2007-2016) obtained by assimilating available observations of sea ice and ocean parameters into the GECCO model. Data from, among others, several satellite programs such as AMSRE, SSMI, AMSR2, Envisat, Jason, Cryosat., AVHRR, and SMOS, and available moorings in the Davis Strait, the Bering Strait, the Fram Strait, the Barents Sea Opening, and by the Nansen and Amundsen Basins Observational System (NABOS), the North Pole Environmental Observatory (NPEO), and the Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project (BGEP) project. A detailed description can be found in Lyu et al., 2020.</p> <p>Guokun Lyu, Nuna Serra, Armin Koehl and Detlef Stammer, 2020. INTAROS Deliverable 6.4 Ice-ocean statistics and state estimation V1. https://intaros.nersc.no/sites/intaros.nersc.no/files/D6.4_INTAROS_Data_assimilation_v1.3.pdf </p>
Arctic Ocean state estimates for 2012 using the GECCO model
<p>The dataset contains the 2012 data of a 10-year ocean synthesis (2007-2016) obtained by assimilating available observations of sea ice and ocean parameters into the GECCO model. Data from, among others, several satellite programs such as AMSRE, SSMI, AMSR2, Envisat, Jason, Cryosat., AVHRR, and SMOS, and available moorings in the Davis Strait, the Bering Strait, the Fram Strait, the Barents Sea Opening, and by the Nansen and Amundsen Basins Observational System (NABOS), the North Pole Environmental Observatory (NPEO), and the Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project (BGEP) project. A detailed description can be found in Lyu et al., 2020.</p> <p>Guokun Lyu, Nuna Serra, Armin Koehl and Detlef Stammer, 2020. INTAROS Deliverable 6.4 Ice-ocean statistics and state estimation V1. https://intaros.nersc.no/sites/intaros.nersc.no/files/D6.4_INTAROS_Data_assimilation_v1.3.pdf </p>
Accelerometer and Force/Torque Sensor Measurements for Parameter and State Estimation of an Unknown Robot End Effector
<h1>Introduction</h1> <p>This dataset was created as part of a study on the development of an estimator for the contact wrench (force and torque) of an unknown robot end effector. A conference paper from this study has been submitted and accepted for the 2024 IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR 2024) [1]. </p> <p>A force/torque sensor (FTS) was attached to the robot wrist, and the unknown end effector was attached to the FTS. An inertial measurement unit (IMU) was in turn attached to the end effector. The FTS measurement can be decomposed into the (1) sensor bias, (2) contact wrench, and the effects from (3) gravity, (4) inertia, (5) vibrations, and (6) noise. Estimation of the contact wrench requires that the remaining effects are compensated for. The FTS and IMU sensor biases, as well as mass and mass center of the unknown end effector, were estimated as described by Vougioukas [2]. His method requires FTS and IMU samples from 24 specific orientations of the sensors. See his paper for a description of this calibration method.</p> <p>The hardware used to generate this dataset were:</p> <ul> <li>KUKA LBR Med 14 serial robot (KUKA AG, Germany)</li> <li>ATI Gamma FTS (ATI Industrial Automation, Inc., USA)</li> <li>ATI Netbox (ATI Industrial Automation, Inc., USA)</li> <li>MPU6886 IMU (M5Stack, China) </li> <li>Arduino Mega 2580 with a W5500 Ethernet Shield </li> </ul> <h1>Method</h1> <p>The robot was used to move the end effector, FTS, and IMU such that a trajectory could be replicated with high precision and accuracy. The trajectory was a simple rotation about the FTS y-axis. This trajectory and the resulting measurements were performed three times. The sensor signals were sampled during each iteration when:</p> <ol> <li>The robot moved freely without any kind of disturbance (<strong>basline</strong>).</li> <li>The robot moved freely with gentle taps to the robot body, using a rubber hammer (<strong>vibrations</strong>).</li> <li>The robot moved with gentle taps to the body using the hammer, and with a manual force exerted on the end effector (<strong>vibrations and contact</strong>).</li> </ol> <p>The IMU signal was obtained by the Arduino Mega using I2C, and the signal was sent from the Arduino to the external PC using the ethernet shield. This setup resulted in <strong>a phase of the IMU signal by 8416 μs</strong>. This was compensated for in the offline analysis of the study on the contact wrench estimator [1]. The sensor samplig rates were different for each sensor; they were approximately 100 Hz for the robot controller (FTS orientation measurements), 700 Hz for the FTS, and 254 Hz for the IMU. The frequency for each signal can be obtained through the timestamps in the dataset.</p> <h1>Dataset</h1> <p>Each CSV file has a row which serves as the header, which labels the columns of each file. The following nomenclature of the column labels were used:</p> <p><strong>t </strong> - Timestep in microseconds. Epoch time. <br><strong>fx,</strong> <strong>fy, fz</strong> - The force components as measured by the FTS.<br><strong>tx, ty, tz </strong>- The torque components as measured by the FTS.<br><strong>ax, ay, az </strong> - The acceleration components measured by the IMU.<br><strong>gx,gy,gz </strong>- The direction of the gravitational vector in the FTS frame.<br><strong>r11, r12, r13, r21, r22, r23, r31, r32, r33 </strong>- The components of the rotation matrix that represents the FTS orientation in the world frame. (R_wf)</p> <p>The measurements from the FTS and IMU signals from the 24 orientations (as required for the calibration method described by Vougioukas [2]), are stored in <strong>0-calibration_fts-accel.csv</strong>. Additionally, the files <strong>0-steady-state_wrench.csv </strong>and <strong>0-steady-state_accel.csv</strong> contains the continuous sensor signal from the FTS and IMU, respectively, while they were at rest; these two files can be used to calculate the sensor signal variances.</p> <p>After calibration, each sensor signal was recorded independently and stored in a separate file from the other sensors. The raw (biased) values were stored. Each test iteration produced three files:</p> <ol> <li>The end effector/FTS/IMU orientation in <strong>[test_iteration]_orientation.csv</strong></li> <li>The unbiased wrench as measured by the FTS in [<strong>test iteration]_wrench.csv</strong></li> <li>The unbiased acceleration as measured by the IMU in <strong>[test_iteration]_accel.csv</strong></li> </ol> <p>The test iteration prefix for these files are: <strong>1-baseline</strong>, <strong>2-vibrations, </strong>and <strong>3-vibrations-contact, </strong>as described in the previous section "Method". To obtain the relative time between samples across the test iteration files ([]<strong>_orientation</strong>, []<strong>_wrench</strong>, and []<strong>_accel.csv</strong>), load each dataset and determine which has the earliest timestamped sample on the first row. Then, subtract this initial timestamp value from all timestamps across the files for the respective test iteration.</p> <p>Note that the IMU frame does not align with the FTS frame (<strong>_accel.csv</strong> vs <strong>_wrench.csv</strong>), the following table describes the rotation matrix R_fa which can be used to transform the acceleration measurements from the IMU frame {a} to the FTS frame {f}. </p> <p>R_fa = </p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td>0</td> <td>-1</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>-1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h1>References</h1> <p>[1] A. Skrede, "A Linear Discrete Kalman Filter to Estimate the Contact Wrench of an Unknown Robot End Effector", Accepted for the 2024 IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), Ålesund, Norway, June 2024 </p> <p>[2] S. Vougioukas, “Bias Estimation and Gravity Compensation For Force-Torque Sensors,” in Recent Advances in Simulation, Computational Methods and Soft Computing. WSEAS Press, 2001, pp. 82–85. </p>
Estimated individual methane emission rates for oil and gas facilities from the continental United States in 2021
<p>File containing 500 separate estimates of 673,940 individual facility-level methane emission rates for oil and gas facilities for the year 2021 in the continental United States. Each column contains one full estimate of the individual facility-level emissions, presented in units of kilograms per hour of methane per facility. The facility categories included in these estimates are production well sites, gathering and boosting compressor stations, transmission and storage compressor stations, processing plants, and flares. This data can be used to recreate the 500 emission distributions presented in Figure 3 in the following manuscript (link: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1402) which is currently under review. This dataset may be updated as the review stages progress</p>
Deep Learning Reach-level Estimates of Mean River Depth at the Conterminous United States Spatial Scale
<p>Abstract: Estimates of riverine channel geometry play a vital role in the physical representation of stream networks in models used to predict flood and drought conditions, manage water resources, and increase our knowledge of fluvial conditions under a changing climate. A well established body of literature exists that explains the relationship between channel geometry parameters width, depth, and velocity to instantaneous river discharge using a log-log linear power-law regression. In this study, a state-of-the-art deep learning regression model is presented and compared against the power-law method to evaluate their ability to estimate cross-sectional mean river depth. Results reveal three key findings, the neural network: (1) decreases RMSE by 22% verse a CONUS scale power-law equation, (2) reduces prediction variance across Strahler stream orders, and (3) generally outperforms regional power-law equations with an average decrease in RMSE of 8.7% Lastly, a reach-level CONUS dataset of estimated mean river depth is delivered.</p> <p> </p> <p>The deep learning model was trained using the following features:</p> <ul> <li>AI - Mean aridity index of unit catchment - Trabucco and Zomer, 2019</li> <li>area - Upstream drainage area (km2) - P. Lin et al., 2020</li> <li>CLY - Mean clay content (mass percentage, %) of unit catchment - Hengl et al., 2017</li> <li>DOR - Stream segment degree of dam regulation (Scale 0. – 100.) - Grill et al., 2019</li> <li>Elev - Stream segment mean elevation - P. Lin et al., 2020</li> <li>K - Mean bedrock permeability of unit catchment surrounding stream segment - Huscroft et al., 2018</li> <li>LAI - Mean leaf area index of unit catchment - Zhu et al., 2013</li> <li>order - Strahler-Horton stream order - P. Lin et al., 2020</li> <li>P - Mean bedrock porosity of unit catchment - Huscroft et al., 2018</li> <li>QMEAN - Stream segment mean annual discharge (m3/s) - P. Lin et al., 2019</li> <li>Sin - Stream segment sinuosity - P. Lin et al., 2020</li> <li>Slp - Stream segment mean longitudinal slope - P. Lin et al., 2020</li> <li>SLT - Mean silt content (mass percentage, %) of unit catchment - Hengl et al., 2017</li> <li>SND - Mean sand content (mass percentage, %) of unit catchment - Hengl et al., 2017</li> <li>stream_wdth_va - Measured stream cross-sectional width (m) - Canova et al., 2016</li> <li>Urb - Mean urban fraction of unit catchment - Liu et al., 2018</li> </ul> <p>The deep learning model was trained using the following label:</p> <ul> <li>mean_depth_va - Measured stream mean depth (m) - Canova et al., 2016</li> </ul> <p>Predictions of mean depth were made by replacing stream_wdth_va from Canova et al., (2016) with bankfull width estimates (width_m) from P. Lin et al., (2020). Missing records from the P. Lin et al., (2020) dataset were excluded when making predictions, thus there are missing reaches in the dataset.</p>
Arctic Ocean state estimates for 2009 using the GECCO model
<p>The dataset contains the 2009 data of a 10-year ocean synthesis (2007-2016) obtained by assimilating available observations of sea ice and ocean parameters into the GECCO model. Data from, among others, several satellite programs such as AMSRE, SSMI, AMSR2, Envisat, Jason, Cryosat., AVHRR, and SMOS, and available moorings in the Davis Strait, the Bering Strait, the Fram Strait, the Barents Sea Opening, and by the Nansen and Amundsen Basins Observational System (NABOS), the North Pole Environmental Observatory (NPEO), and the Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project (BGEP) project. A detailed description can be found in Lyu et al., 2020.</p> <p>Guokun Lyu, Nuna Serra, Armin Koehl and Detlef Stammer, 2020. INTAROS Deliverable 6.4 Ice-ocean statistics and state estimation V1. https://intaros.nersc.no/sites/intaros.nersc.no/files/D6.4_INTAROS_Data_assimilation_v1.3.pdf </p>
FIA Benchmark Biomass Estimates for sub-regions of the United States
<p>This attached GIS (available in both geodatabase and kml formats) contains all of the hexagon-level estimates described by Menlove and Healey's Technical Note: "A comprehensive forest biomass dataset for the US allows customized validation of remotely sensed biomass estimates." Version 1.2: 28 November, 2020</p>
Probabilistic state-level estimates of US coastal storm property damages from climate change
<p>Probabilistic estimates of property damage (2010 USD) by damage mechanism, sea level measure, region, and time period. Values are derived from <em>Estimates of US coastal damages by local sea level </em>(doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.820149) using the code at https://github.com/ClimateImpactLab/acp-impacts</p> <p>Direct (surge + wind) and business-interruption storm damage estimates as well as estimated property below sea level are projected by estimating damages as a function of local sea level (LSL). These damage functions are then applied to probabilistic estimates of local sea level from Kopp et al (2014) using a Monte Carlo simulation. Percentiles of the resulting distributions are presented in the included files. Estimates of property below sea level are calculated for both mean sea level (MSL) as well as mean higher high water (MHHW).</p> <p>In each period, estimates of the cumulative value of inundated property, or property below sea level, are removed from the exposure data set when computing future storm damages; therefore, projections of future storm damages differ between the two measures of sea level.</p>
Mark loss can strongly bias estimates of demographic rates in multi-state models: a case study with simulated and empirical datasets
<p>This archive contains the empirical data analysed in the paper 'Mark loss can strongly bias estimates of demographic rates in multi-state models: a case study with simulated and empirical datasets' by Touzalin et al. (https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.ecology.100416). The dataset is provided as a .Rdata file ('TLoss_GMdata.Rdata'), and full description of the content is provided in the file 'Readme_TLdata.csv'. All additional details are available in the main text (https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.ecology.100416) or in the supporting information (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10204538).</p>
An ensemble of 48 physically perturbed model estimates of the 1/8° terrestrial water budget over the conterminous United States, 1980–2015
<p>This dataset contains the 1980–2015 monthly terrestrial water budget simulated by a 48-member perturbed-physics ensemble configured from the Noah LSM with multi-physics options (Noah‑MP v3.6). Simulation outputs include total evapotranspiration and its constituents (canopy evaporation, soil evaporation, and transpiration), runoff (the surface and subsurface components), as well as terrestrial water storage (snow water equivalent, four-layer soil water content from the surface down to 2 m, and the groundwater storage anomaly). The file name has four parts: the abbreviation for "terrestrial water budget", the used parameterization, the time scale, and the suffix.</p> <p>The 48 physics configurations are generated by combining four runoff parameterizations (run1: SIMGM, run2: SIMTOP, run3: NOAHR, run4: BATS), two parameterizations of stomatal conductance (can1: Ball–Berry, can2: Jarvis), three parameterizations of soil moisture stress factor (btr1:NOAHB, btr2: CLM, btr3: SSiB), and two parameterizations of near-surface atmospheric turbulence (tub1: M-O, tub2: Chen97).</p> <p>The simulation domain covers the all of conterminous United States (25°–53°N, 125°–67°W), which is also called the NLDAS-2 testbed (Xia et al., 2012a, b). The simulations were performed at a spatial resolution of 0.125°, which is the same as for NLDAS-2 models. Details of the simulation settings and spin-up run can be found in Section 2.3 of Zheng et al. (2019) and Section 2.2 of Fei et al. (2021).</p>
An ensemble of 48 perturbed-physics model (Noah-MP) estimates of the 1/8° runoff over the conterminous United States, 1980–2015
<p>This dataset contains the 1980–2015 monthly evapotranspiration simulated by a 48-member perturbed-physics ensemble configured from the Noah LSM with multi-physics options (Noah‑MP v3.6). Simulation outputs include the surface and subsurface runoff. The file name has four parts: the variable collection, the used parameterization, the time scale, and the suffix.</p> <p>The 48 physics configurations are generated by combining four runoff parameterizations (run1: SIMGM, run2: SIMTOP, run3: NOAHR, run4: BATS), two parameterizations of stomatal conductance (can1: Ball–Berry, can2: Jarvis), three parameterizations of soil moisture stress factor (btr1:NOAHB, btr2: CLM, btr3: SSiB), and two parameterizations of near-surface atmospheric turbulence (tub1: M-O, tub2: Chen97).</p> <p>The simulation domain covers the all of conterminous United States (25°–53°N, 125°–67°W), which is also called the NLDAS-2 testbed (Xia et al., 2012a, b). The simulations were performed at a spatial resolution of 0.125°, which is the same as for NLDAS-2 models. Details of the simulation settings and spin-up run can be found in Section 2.3 of Zheng et al. (2019) and Section 2.2 of Fei et al. (2021).</p>
An ensemble of 48 perturbed-physics model (Noah-MP) estimates of the 1/8° ET over the conterminous United States, 1980–2015
<p>This dataset contains the 1980–2015 monthly evapotranspiration simulated by a 48-member perturbed-physics ensemble configured from the Noah LSM with multi-physics options (Noah‑MP v3.6). Simulation outputs include total evapotranspiration and its constituents (canopy evaporation, soil evaporation, and transpiration). The file name has four parts: the variable collection, the used parameterization, the time scale, and the suffix.</p> <p>The 48 physics configurations are generated by combining four runoff parameterizations (run1: SIMGM, run2: SIMTOP, run3: NOAHR, run4: BATS), two parameterizations of stomatal conductance (can1: Ball–Berry, can2: Jarvis), three parameterizations of soil moisture stress factor (btr1:NOAHB, btr2: CLM, btr3: SSiB), and two parameterizations of near-surface atmospheric turbulence (tub1: M-O, tub2: Chen97).</p> <p>The simulation domain covers the all of conterminous United States (25°–53°N, 125°–67°W), which is also called the NLDAS-2 testbed (Xia et al., 2012a, b). The simulations were performed at a spatial resolution of 0.125°, which is the same as for NLDAS-2 models. Details of the simulation settings and spin-up run can be found in Section 2.3 of Zheng et al. (2019) and Section 2.2 of Fei et al. (2021).</p>
An ensemble of 48 perturbed-physics model (Noah-MP) estimates of the 1/8° terrestrial water storage over the conterminous United States, 1980–2015
<p>This dataset contains the 1980–2015 monthly terrestrial water storage simulated by a 48-member perturbed-physics ensemble configured from the Noah LSM with multi-physics options (Noah‑MP v3.6). Simulation outputs include the total terrestrial water storage and its constituents (snow water equivalent, four-layer soil water content from the surface down to 2 m, and the groundwater storage anomaly). The file name has four parts: the variable collection, the used parameterization, the time scale, and the suffix.</p> <p>The 48 physics configurations are generated by combining four runoff parameterizations (run1: SIMGM, run2: SIMTOP, run3: NOAHR, run4: BATS), two parameterizations of stomatal conductance (can1: Ball–Berry, can2: Jarvis), three parameterizations of soil moisture stress factor (btr1:NOAHB, btr2: CLM, btr3: SSiB), and two parameterizations of near-surface atmospheric turbulence (tub1: M-O, tub2: Chen97).</p> <p>The simulation domain covers the all of conterminous United States (25°–53°N, 125°–67°W), which is also called the NLDAS-2 testbed (Xia et al., 2012a, b). The simulations were performed at a spatial resolution of 0.125°, which is the same as for NLDAS-2 models. Details of the simulation settings and spin-up run can be found in Section 2.3 of Zheng et al. (2019) and Section 2.2 of Fei et al. (2021).</p>
Chronogram or phylogram for ancestral state estimation? Model-fit statistics indicate the branch lengths underlying a binary character's evolution: R scripts and simulated trees
<p>All R scripts used in this study, and the set of simulated phylogenetic trees used in the study.</p> <p>1. Modern methods of ancestral state estimation (ASE) incorporate branch length information, and it has been demonstrated that ASEs are more accurate when conducted on the branch lengths most correlated with a character's evolution; however, a reliable method for choosing between alternate branch length sets for discrete characters has not yet been proposed.<br><br>2. In this study, we simulate paired chronograms and phylograms, and generate binary characters that evolve in correlation with one of these. We then investigate (1) the effect of alternate branch lengths on ASE error, and (2) whether phylogenetic signal statistics and/or model-fit statistic can be used to select the branch lengths most correlated with a binary character.<br><br>3. In agreement with previous studies, we find that ASEs are more accurate when conducted on the branch lengths most correlated with the character. Phylogenetic signal statistics show limited utility for selecting the correct branch lengths, but model-fit statistics are found to be more accurate, with the correct branch lengths generally returning greater model-fit (lower AICc and BIC values). Using this method to choose between alternate branch length sets is more accurate when tree and character properties are more favorable for model optimization, and when shape differences between alternate phylogenies are greater.<br><br>4. Our results indicate that researchers conducting ASEs on discrete characters should carefully consider which branch lengths are appropriate, and, in the absence of other evidence, we suggest estimating model-fit values over alternate branch length sets and evolutionary models and choosing the branch length/model combination that returns better model fit.</p>
An ensemble of 48 perturbed-physics model (Noah-MP) estimates of the 1/8° runoff over the conterminous United States, 1980–2015 (time-merged version)
<p>This dataset contains the 1980–2015 monthly evapotranspiration simulated by a 48-member perturbed-physics ensemble configured from the Noah LSM with multi-physics options (Noah‑MP v3.6). Simulation outputs include the surface and subsurface runoff. The file name has four parts: the variable collection, the used parameterization, the time period, the suffix, and the compression format.</p> <p>The 48 physics configurations are generated by combining four runoff parameterizations (run1: SIMGM, run2: SIMTOP, run3: NOAHR, run4: BATS), two parameterizations of stomatal conductance (can1: Ball–Berry, can2: Jarvis), three parameterizations of soil moisture stress factor (btr1:NOAHB, btr2: CLM, btr3: SSiB), and two parameterizations of near-surface atmospheric turbulence (tub1: M-O, tub2: Chen97).</p> <p>The simulation domain covers the all of conterminous United States (25°–53°N, 125°–67°W), which is also called the NLDAS-2 testbed (Xia et al., 2012a, b). The simulations were performed at a spatial resolution of 0.125°, which is the same as for NLDAS-2 models. Details of the simulation settings and spin-up run can be found in Section 2.3 of Zheng et al. (2019) and Section 2.2 of Fei et al. (2021).</p>
An ensemble of 48 perturbed-physics model (Noah-MP) estimates of the 1/8° ET over the conterminous United States, 1980–2015 (time-merged version)
<p>This dataset contains the 1980–2015 monthly evapotranspiration simulated by a 48-member perturbed-physics ensemble configured from the Noah LSM with multi-physics options (Noah‑MP v3.6). Simulation outputs include total evapotranspiration and its constituents (canopy evaporation, soil evaporation, and transpiration). The file name has four parts: the variable collection, the used parameterization, the time period, the suffix, and the compression format.</p> <p>The 48 physics configurations are generated by combining four runoff parameterizations (run1: SIMGM, run2: SIMTOP, run3: NOAHR, run4: BATS), two parameterizations of stomatal conductance (can1: Ball–Berry, can2: Jarvis), three parameterizations of soil moisture stress factor (btr1:NOAHB, btr2: CLM, btr3: SSiB), and two parameterizations of near-surface atmospheric turbulence (tub1: M-O, tub2: Chen97).</p> <p>The simulation domain covers the all of conterminous United States (25°–53°N, 125°–67°W), which is also called the NLDAS-2 testbed (Xia et al., 2012a, b). The simulations were performed at a spatial resolution of 0.125°, which is the same as for NLDAS-2 models. Details of the simulation settings and spin-up run can be found in Section 2.3 of Zheng et al. (2019) and Section 2.2 of Fei et al. (2021).</p>
An ensemble of 48 perturbed-physics model (Noah-MP) estimates of the 1/8° terrestrial water storage over the conterminous United States, 1980–2015 (time-merged version)
<p>This dataset contains the 1980–2015 monthly terrestrial water storage simulated by a 48-member perturbed-physics ensemble configured from the Noah LSM with multi-physics options (Noah‑MP v3.6). Simulation outputs include the total terrestrial water storage and its constituents (snow water equivalent, four-layer soil water content from the surface down to 2 m, and the groundwater storage anomaly). The file name has four parts: the variable collection, the used parameterization, the time period, the suffix, and the compression format.</p> <p>The 48 physics configurations are generated by combining four runoff parameterizations (run1: SIMGM, run2: SIMTOP, run3: NOAHR, run4: BATS), two parameterizations of stomatal conductance (can1: Ball–Berry, can2: Jarvis), three parameterizations of soil moisture stress factor (btr1:NOAHB, btr2: CLM, btr3: SSiB), and two parameterizations of near-surface atmospheric turbulence (tub1: M-O, tub2: Chen97).</p> <p>The simulation domain covers the all of conterminous United States (25°–53°N, 125°–67°W), which is also called the NLDAS-2 testbed (Xia et al., 2012a, b). The simulations were performed at a spatial resolution of 0.125°, which is the same as for NLDAS-2 models. Details of the simulation settings and spin-up run can be found in Section 2.3 of Zheng et al. (2019) and Section 2.2 of Fei et al. (2021).</p>
An ensemble of 48 physically perturbed model estimates of the 1/8° terrestrial water budget over the conterminous United States, 1980–2015
<p>This dataset contains the 1980–2015 monthly terrestrial water budget simulated by a 48-member perturbed-physics ensemble configured from the Noah LSM with multi-physics options (Noah‑MP v3.6). Simulation outputs include total evapotranspiration and its constituents (canopy evaporation, soil evaporation, and transpiration), runoff (the surface and subsurface components), as well as terrestrial water storage (snow water equivalent, four-layer soil water content from the surface down to 2 m, and the groundwater storage anomaly). The file name has four parts: the abbreviation for "terrestrial water budget", the used parameterization, the time scale, and the suffix.</p> <p>The 48 physics configurations are generated by combining four runoff parameterizations (run1: SIMGM, run2: SIMTOP, run3: NOAHR, run4: BATS), two parameterizations of stomatal conductance (can1: Ball–Berry, can2: Jarvis), three parameterizations of soil moisture stress factor (btr1:NOAHB, btr2: CLM, btr3: SSiB), and two parameterizations of near-surface atmospheric turbulence (tub1: M-O, tub2: Chen97).</p> <p>The simulation domain covers the all of conterminous United States (25°–53°N, 125°–67°W), which is also called the NLDAS-2 testbed (Xia et al., 2012a, b). The simulations were performed at a spatial resolution of 0.125°, which is the same as for NLDAS-2 models. Details of the simulation settings and spin-up run can be found in Section 2.3 of Zheng et al. (2019) and Section 2.2 of Fei et al. (2021).</p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.