MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407371306 · doi:10.1063/5.0233169

Bayesian optimization for ion beam centroid correction

2025· article· en· W4407371306 on OpenAlexafffund
E. Ghelfi, A. Katrusiak, R. Baartman, W. Fedorko, O. Kester, G. Kogler Anele, Olivier Shelbaya, D. Tanyer

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's UniversityUniversity of WaterlooTRIUMF
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCentroidBeam steeringComputer scienceOverhead (engineering)Beam (structure)Bayesian optimizationIon beamBayesian probabilitySet (abstract data type)PhysicsOpticsArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An activity of the TRIUMF automatic beam tuning program, the Bayesian optimization for Ion Steering (BOIS) method has been developed to perform corrective centroid steering of beams at the TRIUMF ISAC facility. BOIS exclusively controls the steerers for centroid correction after the transverse optics have been set according to theory. The method is fully online, easy to deploy, and has been tested in low energy and post-accelerated beams at ISAC, achieving results comparable to human operators. scaleBOIS and boundBOIS are naïve proof-of-concept solutions to preferably select beam paths with minimal steering. Repeatable and robust automated steering reduces reliance on operator expertise and operational overhead, ensuring reliable beam delivery to the experiments and thereby supporting TRIUMF's scientific mission.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207