MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390732072 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad1daa

A deep learning technique to control the non-linear dynamics of a gravitational-wave interferometer

2024· article· en· W4390732072 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Xiangyuan, G. Vajente

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLIGOPhysicsKalman filterGravitational waveController (irrigation)InterferometryEstimatorProbabilistic logicComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceControl (management)Optics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this work we developed a deep learning technique that successfully solves a non-linear dynamic control problem. Instead of directly tackling the control problem, we combined methods in probabilistic neural networks and a Kalman-filter-inspired model to build a non-linear state estimator for the system. We then used the estimated states to implement a trivial controller for the now fully observable system. We applied this technique to a crucial non-linear control problem that arises in the operation of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) system, an interferometric gravitational-wave observatory. We demonstrated in simulation that our approach can learn from data to estimate the state of the system, allowing a successful control of the interferometer’s mirror. We also developed a computationally efficient model that can run in real time at high sampling rate on a single modern CPU core, one of the key requirements for the implementation of our solution in the LIGO digital control system. We believe these techniques could be used to help tackle similar non-linear control problems in other applications.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207