A Start To End Machine Learning Approach To Maximize Scientific Throughput From The LCLS-II-HE

Aashwin Mishra; Apurva Mehta; Auralee Edelen; Daniel Ratner; Fred Poitevin; Jana Thayer; Matt Seaberg; Ryan Roussel

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 28 references

A Start To End Machine Learning Approach To Maximize Scientific Throughput From The LCLS-II-HE

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A trust-region Bayesian optimizer, run on a single scalarized objective of intensity and overlap, can align a twelve-axis X-ray split-and-delay system in minutes rather than the current one to four hours.

desk verdict A clear, honest strategy paper for facility-wide ML; its one quantitative claim (HXRSND TuRBO alignment) needs better statistics and metric calibration before being treated as a validated result. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23858 v1 pith:PQOG37GC submitted 2025-05-29 physics.ins-det cs.LGhep-ex

Aashwin Mishra , Matt Seaberg , Ryan Roussel , Fred Poitevin , Jana Thayer , Daniel Ratner , Auralee Edelen , Apurva Mehta This is my paper

classification physics.ins-detcs.LGhep-ex

keywords X-rayfree-electronlaserBayesianoptimizationtrust-regionbeamlinealignmenthardsplit-and-delaystart-to-endmachinelearningphotoncorrelationspectroscopyautonomousexperiment

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the coming high-energy, high-repetition-rate X-ray free-electron laser upgrades will create experiments too precise and too data-rich for manual operation, and that a coordinated start-to-end machine-learning pipeline, spanning the injector, accelerator, X-ray optics, and endstations, is the way to keep scientific throughput high. Its most concrete and testable claim is in the optics stage: a single scalarized objective combining beam intensity and spatial overlap, optimized by a trust-region Bayesian method, can align the twelve-motor hard X-ray split-and-delay system in all dimensions at once, without intermediate sensors. On beamtime data, the optimizer reaches a beam position error under one pixel on a ten-pixel beam within roughly 130 samples and beats the best manual intensity setting within about 100 samples. If these results hold, the expert-dependent alignment that currently takes one to four hours becomes a few-minute automated procedure, which matters for experiments like X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy that require two branches matched in energy and overlap.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is trust-region Bayesian optimization over a scalarized objective that folds beam intensity and spatial overlap into one number. In this algorithm, local surrogate models are fit inside trust regions and samples are allocated across those regions to shrink the search manifold, which is exactly what is needed for a crystal-optics response with a sharp rise followed by a gently sloping top; the optimum sits on a flat-topped ridge in a much wider space. The scalarization matters because it lets a single optimizer chase both scientific requirements at once, while the trust regions keep the search from getting lost in the twelve-dimensional haystack.

What would settle it

Measure the photon energy of each branch of an optimizer-aligned hard X-ray split-and-delay system at the sample with an independent spectrometer; if the two branches differ by more than 0.1 eV while the pixel objective reports an aligned optimum, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the hard X-ray split-and-delay alignment, previously a sequential expert task limited to two or three dimensions at a time and prone to ending far from optimal, is solvable by an off-the-shelf trust-region Bayesian optimization routine driven by a single scalarized objective of intensity and overlap. The paper reports that conventional single- and multi-objective Bayesian optimization fails to converge on this 'needle in a haystack' problem even after a few hundred iterations, whereas the trust-region variant consistently finds high-quality optima in both simulation and real beamtime: under one pixel of beam position error inside 130 samples and an intensity maximum better than the manual optimum within 100 samples. This is claimed to cut alignment time from one to four hours down to a few minutes, with the remaining time dominated by motor motion, and to remove the need for intermediate sensors by aligning all twelve degrees of freedom simultaneously.

Load-bearing premise

The whole speedup rests on assuming a screen-image metric, beam position error under one pixel on a ten-pixel-wide beam, faithfully tracks the experiment's real requirement of matching photon energy to within 0.1 eV with near-perfect spatial overlap at the sample, and the paper does not demonstrate that calibration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Automated alignment of the hard X-ray split-and-delay system becomes a few-minute procedure rather than a one-to-four-hour expert task, freeing significant beamtime for user experiments.
All twelve motor degrees of freedom can be optimized simultaneously without intermediate sensors, so the procedure no longer depends on sequential sensor placement or on an expert's ability to manage more than two or three dimensions.
The same scalarized-objective-with-trust-regions recipe should transfer to other crystal-optics systems whose sharp, flat-topped optima defeat conventional Bayesian optimization.
The pixel-level overlap reported at beamtime suggests the method is stable enough for real experimental conditions, not just simulation.
Because the optimizer needs only a screen image and motor control, the optics module can be chained more easily into the paper's larger start-to-end pipeline, where upstream model outputs feed downstream objectives.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: the pixel-based objective is never calibrated against the 0.1 eV energy-matching requirement cited for X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy, so whether the optimized setting actually satisfies the scientific requirement is an open question the paper does not close.
Beyond the paper: a direct test would be to add an independent energy-dispersive measurement of the two branches during optimization and check whether sub-pixel overlap implies sub-0.1 eV energy match.
Beyond the paper: if this generalizes to other sharp, flat-topped crystal-optics systems, it would suggest that objective design and trust-region tuning, rather than bespoke facility-specific tooling, are the main ingredients needed for autonomous alignment.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know: this is a program description from SLAC, not a validation paper. The one concrete result, TuRBO-based alignment of the HXRSND, is plausible and consistent with the BO literature, but the paper gives it thin support and never connects the optimization metric to the stated scientific tolerance.

The S2E vision is the genuinely useful part. The paper lays out a phased path (independent modules, chaining with uncertainty quantification, whole-chain co-design) and a human-in-the-loop philosophy that is level-headed about automation risk. It honestly names compounding errors as the core technical challenge rather than hand-waving. The choice to use a common platform (Xopt/Badger/Lume) is defensible, and the accelerator-tuning example, though brief, shows the approach has some traction.

The soft spots are concentrated in Section 3.2. The HXRSND claim—12-dimensional alignment in minutes versus 1–4 hours—rests on representative curves in Figure 3 with no error bars, no number of beamtime trials, and a manual baseline described only as 'better than the optimum manual setting.' More importantly, the objective is reported in pixels on an intensity screen (beam width 10 pixels, error under 1 pixel), while the stated XPCS requirement is energy matching to 0.1 eV and near-perfect overlap at the sample. The text never explains the pixel-to-energy mapping or whether the screen is at the sample plane. If that mapping is not tight, the claimed 'optimum' may not satisfy the physics. That is a load-bearing gap for the paper's most quantitative achievement.

Also, the end-to-end chain is not yet demonstrated; Section 3.3 (autoMFX) is a plan with milestones. For a strategy paper that is acceptable, but it should not be read as an S2E validation. The writing is occasionally promotional ('revolutionizing,' 'immense potential')—minor, but it undercuts the restrained tone elsewhere. The citation pattern is fine; self-citations are to SLAC tools that are indeed the ones used, and TuRBO is properly cited.

Who this is for: accelerator and X-ray instrument scientists, ML practitioners at large user facilities, and facility management. It also gives a useful snapshot for funding discussions. I'd send it to peer review, with a request for more rigorous statistics on the HXRSND result and either a calibration analysis or explicit caveats about the proxy metric. The editor should not desk reject it.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper describes a 'Start-2-End' machine-learning strategy being developed at SLAC for LCLS-II-HE, spanning the electron injector, X-ray optics, and experimental endstations. The authors propose a modular, co-designed pipeline built on common tools (Xopt, Badger, Lume, Bluesky) and organized in three phases: independent module development, chaining with uncertainty propagation, and integrated optimization. Three case studies are presented: accelerator tuning with digital twins, Bayesian optimization of the Hard X-Ray Split and Delay (HXRSND) using TuRBO, and the planned autoMFX endstation automation. The most concrete quantitative claim is that TuRBO aligns the HXRSND in all 12 dimensions in minutes rather than the current 1-4 hours, based on representative beamtime results shown in Figure 3.

Significance. If the HXRSND claim withstands scrutiny, it would be a useful demonstration that an off-the-shelf Bayesian optimization algorithm (TuRBO) can replace a slow, expert-dependent, sequential alignment procedure for a critical X-ray optics system, and it would lend credibility to the broader S2E vision. The paper's strengths are its modular architecture, its emphasis on uncertainty quantification and cascading-error awareness, and its explicit human-in-the-loop, risk-averse deployment philosophy. The authors are also transparent that much of the described work is at the planning or early-deployment stage, and they name the specific software artifacts involved. However, the paper currently functions more as a research-strategy overview than as a validated instrument-study result, and the only quantitative validation reported is not yet adequately documented.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.2, Figure 3] The central quantitative claim that TuRBO reduces HXRSND alignment from 1-4 hours to minutes and meets the XPCS requirements lacks the required metrological link. The XPCS use case is stated to require energy matching to within 0.1 eV, near-perfect overlap, and matched intensities, but the optimization objective is reported only as beam position error in pixels (beam width 10 pixels, error under 1 pixel) and as intensity on an unspecified screen. The paper does not state where the diagnostic screen is located, whether pixel offsets at that screen are representative of the sample plane, how pixel error maps to photon-energy error or Bragg-angle error, or how the scalarized objective weights intensity against overlap. Without this calibration, the claimed optimum may satisfy the screen-based objective while failing the scientific tolerance. Please provide the calibration chain from pixels to the scientific metric and report the achieved energy and overlap values.
[Section 3.2] The claims of 'consistent high-quality optima' and of a reduction in alignment time are not supported by the reported statistics. Figure 3 is described as representative, but no number of experimental runs, trials per run, error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical tests are given. The manual baseline ('1-4 hours', 'often far from optimal', 'better than the optimum manual setting') is not documented with respect to how the manual optimum was measured, over how many sessions the time range was observed, or what the operator-defined success criteria were. In addition, the paper does not specify the parameterization of the 12 degrees of freedom or provide evidence that all 12 were simultaneously varied during the reported runs. Please add repeated-run statistics, define the manual baseline quantitatively, and describe the 12-dimensional setup.

minor comments (6)

[Section 2] There are doubled periods in two places: 'stand alone manner..' and 'facility..'.
[Figure 3] Panels (b) and (c) lack axis labels and units; the text should state what is plotted on each axis and how many samples or trials are shown.
[Section 3.2] The statement that conventional Bayesian optimization, both single- and multi-objective, 'was unable to converge to an acceptable optimum even after a few hundred iterations' is unsupported by any comparison data; please add a reference or a plot.
[Section 3.3] Section 3.3 uses promotional wording such as 'revolutionary progression', 'immense potential', and 'ushering in an exciting future'; please replace these with measured descriptions that distinguish what has been demonstrated from what is planned.
[Section 3.2] The HXRSND results should cite the prior work in reference [16] and clarify the relationship between the earlier LCLS-II-HE optics alignment study and the present TuRBO demonstration.
[Section 2] The role of uncertainty propagation in chained models is asserted as a central motivation but is not illustrated with a concrete example or quantitative study; a short demonstration or a clear pointer to existing work would strengthen the section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the HXRSND result is a direct experimental optimization demonstration using the externally published TuRBO algorithm.

full rationale

The paper does not derive a prediction from fitted parameters; its central claim is an empirical demonstration that the TuRBO algorithm, with a scalarized objective of intensity and overlap, aligns the HXRSND in 12 dimensions. The result is reported as direct beamtime measurements ('TuRBO can consistently achieve a minimum of under 1 pixel inside 130 samples'), not as a quantity that was constructed from the objective or from a self-citation. TuRBO is an externally published algorithm (Eriksson et al., 2019), and the paper's in-house tools (Xopt, Badger, Lume) are used as platforms, not as evidence that forces the optimization outcome. Self-citations appear in background discussions of uncertainty propagation and chained models, but none is load-bearing for the alignment claim. The uncalibrated relationship between the pixel-based objective and the 0.1 eV XPCS requirement is a validity or correctness concern, not a circularity: the paper does not claim to derive that calibration from the objective itself. No quoted equation or construction reduces the reported optimum to its input, so no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The concrete HXRSND result depends on unspecified scalarization weights and TuRBO hyperparameters. The broader S2E conclusions rest on two domain assumptions (crystal optics landscape, simulation-to-real transfer) and one untested premise (that cascading errors in chained models can be controlled). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Objective scalarization weights (intensity vs. overlap)
Section 3.2 uses 'a single scalarized objective involving both the intensity and overlap' but does not state the weights or how they were chosen; the reported optimal settings depend on this choice.
TuRBO hyperparameters (trust region sizes, initial points, candidate counts)
Not specified in Section 3.2; the convergence within 130 samples cannot be reproduced or compared without these settings.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Crystal optics have a singular optimal characterized by a sharp Darwin curve with a flat top.
Section 3.2 invokes this to justify the needle-in-a-haystack optimization landscape and the choice of TuRBO; it is standard but not verified for this specific system.
ad hoc to paper Chained ML models can be made robust through uncertainty quantification and uncertainty propagation.
Section 2, second phase, asserts this is necessary and part of the S2E plan, but provides no method or demonstration that cascading errors can be controlled in practice.
domain assumption ML models trained on simulations will transfer to the real accelerator with operator supervision.
Section 2 states models are 'initially trained on simulations, and then individually tested in a real system with operator supervision'; the fidelity of this transfer is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Start To End Machine Learning Approach To Maximize Scientific Throughput From The LCLS-II-HE." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PQOG37GC

@misc{pith2026250523858,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Start To End Machine Learning Approach To Maximize Scientific Throughput From The LCLS-II-HE},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PQOG37GC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23858}
}

read the original abstract

With the increasing brightness of Light sources, including the Diffraction-Limited brightness upgrade of APS and the high-repetition-rate upgrade of LCLS, the proposed experiments therein are becoming increasingly complex. For instance, experiments at LCLS-II-HE will require the X-ray beam to be within a fraction of a micron in diameter, with pointing stability of a few nanoradians, at the end of a kilometer-long electron accelerator, a hundred-meter-long undulator section, and tens of meters long X-ray optics. This enhancement of brightness will increase the data production rate to rival the largest data generators in the world. Without real-time active feedback control and an optimized pipeline to transform measurements to scientific information and insights, researchers will drown in a deluge of mostly useless data, and fail to extract the highly sophisticated insights that the recent brightness upgrades promise. In this article, we outline the strategy we are developing at SLAC to implement Machine Learning driven optimization, automation and real-time knowledge extraction from the electron-injector at the start of the electron accelerator, to the multidimensional X-ray optical systems, and till the experimental endstations and the high readout rate, multi-megapixel detectors at LCLS to deliver the design performance to the users. This is illustrated via examples from Accelerator, Optics and End User applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23858 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Consolidated operational and model pipeline delineating each of the stages. previously deployed modules. We test and train ML tools on common platforms for each element independently, then we chain these tools via real-time diagnostics, and finally integrate and optimize the entire chain. An S2E chain would often contain modules at different stages of operator control and autonomy, and gradually progress to higher l… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Accelerator tuning tools and live system models (digital twins) are available for operators to use during setup of new configurations. We have been developing tools for aiding automated tuning in the accelerator control room, as well as for predicting/tracking machine behavior over time and enabling model-based control via the use of digital twins. Our ML-based tuning software, consisting of the Xopt algorithm dri… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Optimization of the HXRSND (a) Outlines the Split And Delay system with the CC branch in blue and the delay branch in red, (b) Beam Position Error minimization using TuRBO for the experimental beamtime, (c) Intensity maximization using TuRBO for the same run. While discussing the optimization and control of complex optics systems at SLAC, we use the Hard X-Ray Split and Delay (HXRSND) as an example. As outlined in 7… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Schematic outline of running Bayesian optimization based beamline alignment at MFX using Xopt. idates data outputs from the Data Acquisition (DAQ) system into actionable insights, improving the conversion of data streams from EPICS into relevant feedback for experimen…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Allan, T

D. Allan, T. Caswell, S. Campbell, and M. Rakitin, Bluesky’s ahead: a multi-facility collaboration for an a la carte software project for data acquisition and management , Synchrotron Radiation News 32 (2019), pp. 19–22

work page 2019
[2]

Roussel, A

R. Roussel, A. Edelen, A. Bartnik, and C. Mayes, Xopt: A simplified framework for opti- mization of accelerator problems using advanced algorithms, in Proc. IPAC’23, 05. JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, no. 14 in IPAC’23 - 14th International Particle Acceler- ator Conference, 2023, pp. 4796–4799, Available at https://indico.jacow.org/event/ 41/contr...

work page 2023
[3]

Zhang, M

Z. Zhang, M. B¨ ose, A. Edelen, J. Garrahan, Y. Hidaka, C. Mayes, S. Miskovich, D. Ratner, R. Roussel, J. Shtalenkova, S. Tomin, and G. Wang, Badger: The Missing Optimizer in ACR , in Proc. IPAC’22, 07. JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, no. 13 in International Particle Accelerator Conference, 2022, pp. 999–1002, Available at https://jacow.org/ipac202...

work page 2022
[4]

Mayes, P

C. Mayes, P. Fuoss, J. Garrahan, H. Slepicka, A. Halavanau, J. Krzywinski, A. Edelen, F. Ji, W. Lou, N. Neveu, et al. , Lightsource unified modeling environment (lume), a start- to-end simulation ecosystem , Proc. of IPAC (2021), p. THPAB217

work page 2021
[5]

Le Borgne, X

A. Le Borgne, X. Marjou, F. Parzysz, and T. Lemlouma, Comparing a composite model versus chained models to locate a nearest visual object , in 2023 IEEE/ACIS 8th Interna- tional Conference on Big Data, Cloud Computing, and Data Science (BCD) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 231–236

work page 2023
[6]

Shafighfard, F

T. Shafighfard, F. Kazemi, F. Bagherzadeh, M. Mieloszyk, and D.Y. Yoo, Chained ma- chine learning model for predicting load capacity and ductility of steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 39 (2024), pp. 3573–3594. 11

work page 2024
[7]

Wahid, R

M.F. Wahid, R. Tafreshi, Z. Khan, and A. Retnanto, Multiphase flow rate prediction using chained multi-output regression models , Geoenergy Science and Engineering 231 (2023), p. 212403

work page 2023
[8]

Uncertainty Propagation within Chained Models for Machine Learning Reconstruction of Neutrino-LAr Interactions

D. Douglas, A. Mishra, D. Ratner, F. Petersen, and K. Terao, Uncertainty propagation within chained models for machine learning reconstruction of neutrino-lar interactions , arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09864 (2024)

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 28 references

[9]

Carreras and L

X. Carreras and L. M` arquez,Introduction to the CoNLL-2005 shared task: Semantic role labeling, in Proceedings of the ninth conference on computational natural language learning (CoNLL-2005). 2005, pp. 152–164

2005
[10]

Attardi, V

G. Attardi, V. Basile, C. Bosco, T. Caselli, F. Dell’Orletta, S. Montemagni, V. Patti, M. Simi, and R. Sprugnoli, State of the art language technologies for italian: The evalita 2014 perspective, Intelligenza Artificiale 9 (2015), pp. 43–61

2015
[11]

Li and M

Y. Li and M. van der Schaar, On error propagation of diffusion models , arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05021 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[12]

Gow, Uncertainty quantication and propagation through complex chains of computa- tional models, Ph.D

S. Gow, Uncertainty quantication and propagation through complex chains of computa- tional models, Ph.D. diss., University of Southampton, 2021

2021
[13]

Eriksson, M

D. Eriksson, M. Pearce, J. Gardner, R.D. Turner, and M. Poloczek, Scalable global op- timization via local bayesian optimization , Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

2019
[14]

Gupta, A

L. Gupta, A. Edelen, N. Neveu, A. Mishra, C. Mayes, and Y.K. Kim, Improving surrogate model accuracy for the lcls-ii injector frontend using convolutional neural networks and transfer learning, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 2 (2021), p. 045025

2021
[15]

Edelen, N

A. Edelen, N. Neveu, C. Mayes, C. Emma, and D. Ratner, Machine learning models for optimization and control of x-ray free electron lasers , in NeurIPS Machine Learning for the Physical Sciences Workshop . 2019

2019
[16]

Mishra, N

A. Mishra, N. Brennan, T. Huang, J. Jaquith, H. Yavas, and M. Seaberg, Machine learning-based alignment for LCLS-II-HE optics , in Advances in Computational Meth- ods for X-Ray Optics VI , Vol. 12697. SPIE, 2023, pp. 43–48

2023
[17]

Psaros, X

A.F. Psaros, X. Meng, Z. Zou, L. Guo, and G.E. Karniadakis, Uncertainty quantification in scientific machine learning: Methods, metrics, and comparisons , Journal of Computa- tional Physics 477 (2023), p. 111902

2023
[18]

K.D.H. Koh, A. Mishra, and K. Terao, Evaluating deep learning uncertainty quantification methods for neutrino physics applications , in 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2021

2021
[19]

D. Koh, A. Mishra, and K. Terao, Deep neural network uncertainty quantification for lartpc reconstruction, Journal of Instrumentation 18 (2023), p. P12013

2023
[20]

Mishra, A

A.A. Mishra, A. Edelen, A. Hanuka, and C. Mayes, Uncertainty quantification for deep learning in particle accelerator applications , Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 24 (2021), p. 114601

2021
[21]

Smith, Uncertainty quantification: theory, implementation, and applications , SIAM, 2024

R.C. Smith, Uncertainty quantification: theory, implementation, and applications , SIAM, 2024

2024
[22]

Mishra, J

A.A. Mishra, J. Mukhopadhaya, G. Iaccarino, and J. Alonso, Uncertainty estimation module for turbulence model predictions in su2 , AIAA Journal 57 (2019), pp. 1066–1077

2019
[23]

Petersen, A

F. Petersen, A. Mishra, H. Kuehne, C. Borgelt, O. Deussen, and M. Yurochkin, Uncer- tainty quantification via stable distribution propagation , arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08324 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[24]

Petersen, C

F. Petersen, C. Borgelt, A. Mishra, and S. Ermon, Generalizing stochastic smoothing for differentiation and gradient estimation , arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08125 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[25]

Hoidn, A.A

O. Hoidn, A.A. Mishra, and A. Mehta, Physics constrained unsupervised deep learning for rapid, high resolution scanning coherent diffraction reconstruction , Scientific Reports 13 (2023), p. 22789

2023
[26]

Vong, S.F

A. Vong, S.F. Henke, O. Hoidn, H. Parraga, T. Zhou, A. Mehta, and N. Schwarz, Portable Cross-Facility Workflows for X-ray Ptychography, in SC24-W: Workshops of the Interna- tional Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis . 12 IEEE, 2024, pp. ...

2024
[27]

Sierra, A

R.G. Sierra, A. Batyuk, Z. Sun, A. Aquila, M.S. Hunter, T.J. Lane, M. Liang, C.H. Yoon, R. Alonso-Mori, R. Armenta, et al. , The macromolecular femtosecond crystallography instrument at the linac coherent light source , Synchrotron Radiation 26 (2019), pp. 346– 357

2019
[28]

Boutet, A.E

S. Boutet, A.E. Cohen, and S. Wakatsuki, The new macromolecular femtosecond crystal- lography (mfx) instrument at lcls , Synchrotron radiation news 29 (2016), pp. 23–28. 13

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Allan, T

D. Allan, T. Caswell, S. Campbell, and M. Rakitin, Bluesky’s ahead: a multi-facility collaboration for an a la carte software project for data acquisition and management , Synchrotron Radiation News 32 (2019), pp. 19–22

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Roussel, A

R. Roussel, A. Edelen, A. Bartnik, and C. Mayes, Xopt: A simplified framework for opti- mization of accelerator problems using advanced algorithms, in Proc. IPAC’23, 05. JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, no. 14 in IPAC’23 - 14th International Particle Acceler- ator Conference, 2023, pp. 4796–4799, Available at https://indico.jacow.org/event/ 41/contr...

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Zhang, M

Z. Zhang, M. B¨ ose, A. Edelen, J. Garrahan, Y. Hidaka, C. Mayes, S. Miskovich, D. Ratner, R. Roussel, J. Shtalenkova, S. Tomin, and G. Wang, Badger: The Missing Optimizer in ACR , in Proc. IPAC’22, 07. JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, no. 13 in International Particle Accelerator Conference, 2022, pp. 999–1002, Available at https://jacow.org/ipac202...

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Mayes, P

C. Mayes, P. Fuoss, J. Garrahan, H. Slepicka, A. Halavanau, J. Krzywinski, A. Edelen, F. Ji, W. Lou, N. Neveu, et al. , Lightsource unified modeling environment (lume), a start- to-end simulation ecosystem , Proc. of IPAC (2021), p. THPAB217

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Le Borgne, X

A. Le Borgne, X. Marjou, F. Parzysz, and T. Lemlouma, Comparing a composite model versus chained models to locate a nearest visual object , in 2023 IEEE/ACIS 8th Interna- tional Conference on Big Data, Cloud Computing, and Data Science (BCD) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 231–236

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Shafighfard, F

T. Shafighfard, F. Kazemi, F. Bagherzadeh, M. Mieloszyk, and D.Y. Yoo, Chained ma- chine learning model for predicting load capacity and ductility of steel fiber–reinforced concrete beams, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 39 (2024), pp. 3573–3594. 11

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Wahid, R

M.F. Wahid, R. Tafreshi, Z. Khan, and A. Retnanto, Multiphase flow rate prediction using chained multi-output regression models , Geoenergy Science and Engineering 231 (2023), p. 212403

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Uncertainty Propagation within Chained Models for Machine Learning Reconstruction of Neutrino-LAr Interactions

D. Douglas, A. Mishra, D. Ratner, F. Petersen, and K. Terao, Uncertainty propagation within chained models for machine learning reconstruction of neutrino-lar interactions , arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09864 (2024)

work page Pith review arXiv 2024