Strongly curved super-conducting magnets: beam optics modeling and field quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Superconducting dipoles with a strong curvature (radius smaller than 2 meters, for an aperture of about 100 mm and a length of 1-3 meters) are required for applications where compactness is key, such as the synchrotron and gantry for Carbon-ion therapy developed within the European program HITRIplus. Such magnets challenge several assumptions in the field description and put to the test the range of validity of beam optics codes. In particular, the equivalence that holds for the straight magnets between the transverse multipoles description obtained from the Fourier analysis (used for magnet design and measurements) and the Taylor expansion of the vertical field component along the horizontal axis (used in beam optics) is not valid any longer. A proper fringe field modelling also becomes important, due to the curved geometry and the aperture being large compared to the magnetic length. We explore the feasibility and the limits of modeling such magnets with optics elements (such as sector bends and multipoles), which allows parametric optics studies for optimization, field quality definition and fast long-term multi-pass tracking.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".