Zachary M. Prince

Mengnan Li, Jason Miller, Zachary Prince et al.

MOOSEnger is a tool-enabled AI agent tailored to the Multiphysics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE). MOOSE cases are specified in HIT ".i" input files; the large object catalog and strict syntax make initial setup and debugging slow. MOOSEnger offers a conversational workflow that turns natural-language intent into runnable inputs by combining retrieval-augmented generation over curated docs/examples with deterministic, MOOSE-aware parsing, validation, and execution tools. A core-plus-domain architecture separates reusable agent infrastructure (configuration, registries, tool dispatch, retrieval services, persistence, and evaluation) from a MOOSE plugin that adds HIT-based parsing, syntax-preserving ingestion of input files, and domain-specific utilities for input repair and checking. An input precheck pipeline removes hidden formatting artifacts, fixes malformed HIT structure with a bounded grammar-constrained loop, and resolves invalid object types via similarity search over an application syntax registry. Inputs are then validated and optionally smoke-tested with the MOOSE runtime in the loop via an MCP-backed execution backend (with local fallback), translating solver diagnostics into iterative verify-and-correct updates. Built-in evaluation reports RAG metrics (faithfulness, relevancy, context precision/recall) and end-to-end success by actual execution. On a 125-prompt benchmark spanning diffusion, transient heat conduction, solid mechanics, porous flow, and incompressible Navier--Stokes, MOOSEnger achieves a 0.93 execution pass rate versus 0.08 for an LLM-only baseline.

Somayajulu L. N. Dhulipala, Michael D. Shields, Promit Chakroborty et al.

Tristructural isotropic (TRISO)-coated particle fuel is a robust nuclear fuel and determining its reliability is critical for the success of advanced nuclear technologies. However, TRISO failure probabilities are small and the associated computational models are expensive. We used coupled active learning, multifidelity modeling, and subset simulation to estimate the failure probabilities of TRISO fuels using several 1D and 2D models. With multifidelity modeling, we replaced expensive high-fidelity (HF) model evaluations with information fusion from two low-fidelity (LF) models. For the 1D TRISO models, we considered three multifidelity modeling strategies: only Kriging, Kriging LF prediction plus Kriging correction, and deep neural network (DNN) LF prediction plus Kriging correction. While the results across these multifidelity modeling strategies compared satisfactorily, strategies employing information fusion from two LF models consistently called the HF model least often. Next, for the 2D TRISO model, we considered two multifidelity modeling strategies: DNN LF prediction plus Kriging correction (data-driven) and 1D TRISO LF prediction plus Kriging correction (physics-based). The physics-based strategy, as expected, consistently required the fewest calls to the HF model. However, the data-driven strategy had a lower overall simulation time since the DNN predictions are instantaneous, and the 1D TRISO model requires a non-negligible simulation time.