ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2021
Deep Learning Based Superconducting Radio-Frequency Cavity Fault Classification at Jefferson Laboratory.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep Learning Based Superconducting Radio-Frequency Cavity Fault Classification at Jefferson Laboratory.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work investigates the efficacy of deep learning (DL) for classifying C100 superconducting radio-frequency (SRF) cavity faults in the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) at Jefferson Lab. CEBAF is a large, high-power continuous wave recirculating linac that utilizes 418 SRF cavities to accelerate electrons up to 12 GeV. Recent upgrades to CEBAF include installation of 11 new cryomodules (88 cavities) equipped with a low-level RF system that records RF time-series data from each cavity at the onset of an RF failure. Typically, subject matter experts (SME) analyze this data to determine the fault type and identify the cavity of origin. This information is subsequently utilized to identify failure trends and to implement corrective measures on the offending cavity. Manual inspection of large-scale, time-series data, generated by frequent system failures is tedious and time consuming, and thereby motivates the use of machine learning (ML) to automate the task. This study extends work on a previously developed system based on traditional ML methods (Tennant and Carpenter and Powers and Shabalina Solopova and Vidyaratne and Iftekharuddin, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams, 2020, 23, 114601), and investigates the effectiveness of deep learning approaches. The transition to a DL model is driven by the goal of developing a system with sufficiently fast inference that it could be used to predict a fault event and take actionable information before the onset (on the order of a few hundred milliseconds). Because features are learned, rather than explicitly computed, DL offers a potential advantage over traditional ML. Specifically, two seminal DL architecture types are explored: deep recurrent neural networks (RNN) and deep convolutional neural networks (CNN). We provide a detailed analysis on the performance of individual models using an RF waveform dataset built from past operational runs of CEBAF. In particular, the performance of RNN models incorporating long short-term memory (LSTM) are analyzed along with the CNN performance. Furthermore, comparing these DL models with a state-of-the-art fault ML model shows that DL architectures obtain similar performance for cavity identification, do not perform quite as well for fault classification, but provide an advantage in inference speed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.