Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “noisy optimization”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 397 records · Page 22
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Quantum Information for Fusion Energy Sciences (Final Technical Report)

The simulation of plasma dynamics is a critical area of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) due to it’s usefulness in predicting, controlling, and confining plasmas in the context of potential fusion reactors. The simulation of plasmas is a computationally difficult problem in both classical and quantum physics, motivating investigation into the potential of quantum computers to simulate these systems. This project took several concrete steps towards this goal by developing tools for improving the control, characterization, and calibration of quantum gates on a superconducting quantum computer, developing error suppression and mitigation tools to reduce errors on the quantum computer, and utilizing these advancements to simulate reduced models of plasma dynamics on the quantum computer. In order to efficiently simulate plasma physics, an optimal control method which synthesizes, directly at the pulse level, any quantum gate on qubit and qutrit systems was developed. Using four superconducting transmon quantum processors at Rigetti and LLNL, it was demonstrated that any arbitrary quantum gate on qubits and qutrits could be implemented with high fidelity, leading to a significantly reduced length of a gate sequence. A problem of interest in FES is the nonlinear optical process of laser pulse compression within a plasma. Since quantum physics is linear, simulating nonlinear operations is not naturally feasible on a quantum computer, however it is possible to simulated a quantized version of the nonlinear process. A quantization approach to convert nonlinear wave-wave interaction problems to Hamiltonian simulation problems was developed and demonstrated using two qubits on a Rigetti device. In this experiment, a number of error suppression and mitigation techniques were investigated to determine how best to utilize the finite quantum resources. This study provides an example of how plasma problems may be solved on near-term, noisy quantum computing platforms and identified a promising set of techniques. Building on the insights of these experiments, the investigation turned to linear electron-plasma wave physics. A connection was identified between a local one-dimensional lattice spin model and linear wave phenomena, allowing a plasma physics problem to be efficiently mapped to the quantum computer. In this framework, reflection and transmission of plasma waves at a sharp boundary was studied, as well as the propagation of waves through an inhomogeneous plasma medium. In addition to the suite of error suppression and mitigation techniques developed, this experiment introduced the use of a digital-analog gate scheme designed to efficiently simulate the plasma Hamiltonian. With hardware available at the conclusion of the project, simulation at the scale of 9 qubits and 15 timesteps (60 entangling layers) was achieved.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Quantum-Assisted Variational Segmentation for Image-to-Image Wildfire Detection Using Satellite Data

The quantum computing community has been searching for suitable applications to demonstrate the potential of near-term quantum devices. Quantum machine learning is a potential candidate, particularly using models that cannot be efficiently simulated with classical computers [1, 2]. This work focuses on a transition phase of quantum computers where the quantum machine learning model is still simulable classically but projected not to be simulable as the size of the model grows. Ultimately quantum computers may have advantages for high-dimensional real-world problems. Due to the limited number of qubits in current noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices, the direct application of quantum computers in high dimensional data is not feasible. To remedy this problem, an encoder-decoder architecture can be utilized. The encoder model would transform the high-dimensional data into a compact representation, to a level that small quantum computers can be used today (or in the near future), and the decoder would take the quantum processed outputs back to the high-dimensional space. Addressing the two challenges of quantum machine learning, this work investigates a hybrid supervised generative model with a quantum Ising Born machine embedded as the latent distribution. The model contains four main parts (Figure 1.a.): (1) a U-NET architecture responsible for learning segmentation flow, (2) a Prior network responsible for learning an encoded latent distribution of the input data, (3) a Born machine which represents the latent distribution, and (4) a Posterior network in charge of learning the joint encoded latent distribution of inputs and target data. The initial model, proposed by [3], is optimized by (1) maximizing the overlap of the prior and posterior latent distributions, and (2) minimizing the segmentation loss. The proposed model is designed to be investigated in a simulation environment applied to the real-world application of wildfire segmentation. Specifically, the model is designed to solve the patchy wildfire segmentations of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) by taking the MODIS observations and using Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite’s (VIIRS) consistent wildfire product as the target. The model solves patchy wildfire segmentations and provides insight into the epistemic errors sourced from model variation. The model utilizes the Born machine as a QUBO solver to represent the latent space as a Bernoulli distribution. The proposed configuration allows the variational segmentation model to leverage the true quantum probabilistic nature and derive a more expressive latent configuration, increasing the model performance in describing wildfire segmentations. The quantum probabilistic information of the Born machine is directly incorporated in the Kullback-Leibler divergence loss in the prior and posterior distributions, forcing the Bernoulli latent distribution to maximize the overlap of input and joint input-target distributions. The proposed model is then trained and compared with a baseline only consisting of direct Bernoulli latent distribution with no Born machine representing the latent space. The models are evaluated based on the segmentation metrics, such as precision, recall, intersect of union, with uncertainty boundaries accounting for the stochastic nature of the model. Our findings show that even in low latent-dimensional space (due to the limit in computational power of the classical quantum simulator), we are able to effectively capture the latent representation and hence the model performs better than the baseline. The findings are a projection for scaling the model into higher dimensional latent space with the Born machine surpassing the baseline performance. Figure 1. Sub-figure (a) demonstrates the architecture for the training phase. The model consists of a Prior and Posterior network that encode inputs and joint input-target data into compact representations, respectively. The Born machine represents the latent distribution, and the U-NET branch learns the segmentation patterns of the data. The stochasticity is introduced to the U-NET through its last layer to create meaningful but stochastic segmentations. Sub-figure (b) represents the inference phase where the model takes the stochastic behavior from the prior network and injects that into the U-NET. Each attempt of inference will generate different but similar segmentations from the same distribution of the wildfire event. REFERENCES [1] Coyle, B., Mills, D., Danos, V., & Kashefi, E. (2020). The Born supremacy: quantum advantage and training of an Ising Born machine. npj Quantum Information, 6(1), 1-11. [2] Liu, J. G., & Wang, L. (2018). Differentiable learning of quantum circuit born machines. Physical Review A, 98(6), 062324. [3] Kohl, S., Romera-Paredes, B., Meyer, C., De Fauw, J., Ledsam, J. R., Maier-Hein, K., ... & Ronneberger, O. (2018). A probabilistic u-net for segmentation of ambiguous images. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31.

quantum machine learning↗
DOE OSTI2015

EXTRACTING PERIODIC TRANSIT SIGNALS FROM NOISY LIGHT CURVES USING FOURIER SERIES

We present a simple and powerful method for extracting transit signals associated with a known transiting planet from noisy light curves. Assuming the orbital period of the planet is known and the signal is periodic, we illustrate that systematic noise can be removed in Fourier space at all frequencies by only using data within a fixed time frame with a width equal to an integer number of orbital periods. This results in a reconstruction of the full transit signal, which on average is unbiased despite no prior knowledge of either the noise or the transit signal itself being used in the analysis. The method therefore has clear advantages over standard phase folding, which normally requires external input such as nearby stars or noise models for removing systematic components. In addition, we can extract the full orbital transit signal (360°) simultaneously, and Kepler-like data can be analyzed in just a few seconds. We illustrate the performance of our method by applying it to a dataset composed of light curves from Kepler with a fake injected signal emulating a planet with rings. For extracting periodic transit signals, our presented method is in general the optimal and least biased estimator and could therefore lead the way toward the first detections of, e.g., planet rings and exo-trojan asteroids.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

HetArch: Heterogeneous Microarchitectures for Superconducting Quantum Systems

Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum Computing (NISQ) has dominated headlines in recent years, with the longer-term vision of Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation (FTQC) offering significant potential but at currently intractable resource costs and quantum error correction (QEC) overheads. For problems of interest, FTQC will require millions of physical qubits with long coherence times, high-fidelity gates, and compact sizes to surpass classical systems. Just as heterogeneous specialization has offered scaling benefits in classical computing, it is likewise gaining interest in FTQC. However, systematic use of heterogeneity in either hardware or software elements of FTQC systems remains a serious challenge due to the vast design space and the variable physical constraints. This paper meets the challenge of making heterogeneous FTQC design practical by introducing HetArch, a toolbox for designing heterogeneous quantum systems, and using it to explore heterogeneous design scenarios. Using a hierarchical approach, we successively break quantum algorithms into smaller operations (akin to classical application kernels), thus greatly simplifying the design space and resulting tradeoffs. Specializing to superconducting systems, we then design optimized heterogeneous hardware composed of varied superconducting devices, abstracting physical constraints into design rules that enable devices to be assembled into standard cells optimized for specific operations, which, in turn, form heterogeneous modules optimized for quantum subroutines. Finally, we provide a heterogeneous design space exploration framework which reduces the simulation burden by a factor of 10^4 or more and allows us to characterize optimal design points. We use these techniques to design superconducting quantum modules for entanglement distillation, error correction, and code teleportation, reducing error rates by 2.6×, 10.7×, and 3.4× compared to homogeneous systems.

Quantum Computing, Quantum Physics, Computer Archi↗
NASA NTRS1989

Radio frequency interference at Jodrell Bank Observatory within the protected 21 cm band

Radio frequency interference (RFI) will provide one of the most difficult challenges to systematic Searches for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) at microwave frequencies. The SETI-specific equipment is being optimized for the detection of signals generated by a technology rather than those generated by natural processes in the universe. If this equipment performs as expected, then it will inevitably detect many signals originating from terrestrial technology. If these terrestrial signals are too numerous and/or strong, the equipment will effectively be blinded to the (presumably) weaker extraterrestrial signals being sought. It is very difficult to assess how much of a problem RFI will actually represent to future observations, without employing the equipment and beginning the search. In 1983 a very high resolution spectrometer was placed at the Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories at Jodrell Bank, England. This equipment permitted an investigation of the interference environment at Jodrell Bank, at that epoch, and at frequencies within the 21 cm band. This band was chosen because it has long been "protected" by international agreement; no transmitters should have been operating at those frequencies. The data collected at Jodrell Bank were expected to serve as a "best case" interference scenario and provide the minimum design requirements for SETI equipment that must function in the real and noisy environment. This paper describes the data collection and analysis along with some preliminary conclusions concerning the nature of the interference environment at Jodrell Bank.

NASA Discipline Number 52-60↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-00: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG # 5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Error rate reduction of single-qubit gates via noise-aware decomposition into native gates

In the current era of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) technology, the practical use of quantum computers remains inhibited by our inability to aptly decouple qubits from their environment to mitigate computational errors. In this paper, we introduce an approach by which knowledge of a qubit’s initial quantum state and the standard parameters describing its decoherence can be leveraged to mitigate the noise present during the execution of a single-qubit gate. We benchmark our protocol using cloud-based access to IBM quantum processors. On ibmq_rome, we demonstrate a reduction of the single-qubit error rate by 38%, from $1.6 \times 10 ^{-3}$ to $1.0 \times 10 ^{-3}$ , provided the initial state of the input qubit is known. On ibmq_bogota, we prove that our protocol will never decrease gate fidelity, provided the system’s T 1 and T 2 times have not drifted above 100 times their assumed values. The protocol can be used to reduce quantum state preparation errors, as well as to improve the fidelity of quantum circuits for which some knowledge of the qubits’ intermediate states can be inferred. This paper presents a pathway to using information about noise levels and quantum state distributions to significantly reduce error rates associated with quantum gates via optimized decomposition into native hardware gates.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
NASA NTRS2004

A Preliminary ZEUS Lightning Location Error Analysis Using a Modified Retrieval Theory

The ZEUS long-range VLF arrival time difference lightning detection network now covers both Europe and Africa, and there are plans for further expansion into the western hemisphere. In order to fully optimize and assess ZEUS lightning location retrieval errors and to determine the best placement of future receivers expected to be added to the network, a software package is being developed jointly between the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV). The software package, called the ZEUS Error Analysis for Lightning (ZEAL), will be used to obtain global scale lightning location retrieval error maps using both a Monte Carlo approach and chi-squared curvature matrix theory. At the core of ZEAL will be an implementation of an Iterative Oblate (IO) lightning location retrieval method recently developed at MSFC. The IO method will be appropriately modified to account for variable wave propagation speed, and the new retrieval results will be compared with the current ZEUS retrieval algorithm to assess potential improvements. In this preliminary ZEAL work effort, we defined 5000 source locations evenly distributed across the Earth. We then used the existing (as well as potential future ZEUS sites) to simulate arrival time data between source and ZEUS site. A total of 100 sources were considered at each of the 5000 locations, and timing errors were selected from a normal distribution having a mean of 0 seconds and a standard deviation of 20 microseconds. This simulated "noisy" dataset was analyzed using the IO algorithm to estimate source locations. The exact locations were compared with the retrieved locations, and the results are summarized via several color-coded "error maps."

Elander, Valjean↗
DOE OSTI2014

Measurement of cardiac output from dynamic pulmonary circulation time CT

Purpose: To introduce a method of estimating cardiac output from the dynamic pulmonary circulation time CT that is primarily used to determine the optimal time window of CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Methods: Dynamic pulmonary circulation time CT series, acquired for eight patients, were retrospectively analyzed. The dynamic CT series was acquired, prior to the main CTPA, in cine mode (1 frame/s) for a single slice at the level of the main pulmonary artery covering the cross sections of ascending aorta (AA) and descending aorta (DA) during the infusion of iodinated contrast. The time series of contrast changes obtained for DA, which is the downstream of AA, was assumed to be related to the time series for AA by the convolution with a delay function. The delay time constant in the delay function, representing the average time interval between the cross sections of AA and DA, was determined by least square error fitting between the convoluted AA time series and the DA time series. The cardiac output was then calculated by dividing the volume of the aortic arch between the cross sections of AA and DA (estimated from the single slice CT image) by the average time interval, and multiplying the result by a correction factor. Results: The mean cardiac output value for the six patients was 5.11 (l/min) (with a standard deviation of 1.57 l/min), which is in good agreement with the literature value; the data for the other two patients were too noisy for processing. Conclusions: The dynamic single-slice pulmonary circulation time CT series also can be used to estimate cardiac output.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2014

The EB factory project. I. A fast, neural-net-based, general purpose light curve classifier optimized for eclipsing binaries

We describe a new neural-net-based light curve classifier and provide it with documentation as a ready-to-use tool for the community. While optimized for identification and classification of eclipsing binary stars, the classifier is general purpose, and has been developed for speed in the context of upcoming massive surveys such as the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. A challenge for classifiers in the context of neural-net training and massive data sets is to minimize the number of parameters required to describe each light curve. We show that a simple and fast geometric representation that encodes the overall light curve shape, together with a chi-square parameter to capture higher-order morphology information results in efficient yet robust light curve classification, especially for eclipsing binaries. Testing the classifier on the ASAS light curve database, we achieve a retrieval rate of 98% and a false-positive rate of 2% for eclipsing binaries. We achieve similarly high retrieval rates for most other periodic variable-star classes, including RR Lyrae, Mira, and delta Scuti. However, the classifier currently has difficulty discriminating between different sub-classes of eclipsing binaries, and suffers a relatively low (∼60%) retrieval rate for multi-mode delta Cepheid stars. We find that it is imperative to train the classifier's neural network with exemplars that include the full range of light curve quality to which the classifier will be expected to perform; the classifier performs well on noisy light curves only when trained with noisy exemplars. The classifier source code, ancillary programs, a trained neural net, and a guide for use, are provided.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Two datasets are better than one: method of double moments for 3D reconstruction in cryo-EM

Cryo-electron microscopy is a powerful imaging technique for reconstructing three-dimensional molecular structures from noisy tomographic projection images of randomly oriented particles. We introduce a new data fusion framework, termed the method of double moments, which reconstructs molecular structures from two instances of the second-order moment of projection images obtained under distinct orientation distributions: one uniform, the other non-uniform and unknown. We prove that these moments generically uniquely determine the underlying structure, up to a global rotation and reflection, and we develop a convex-relaxation-based algorithm that achieves accurate recovery using only second-order statistics. Our results demonstrate the advantage of collecting and modeling multiple datasets under different experimental conditions, illustrating that leveraging dataset diversity can substantially enhance reconstruction quality in computational imaging tasks.

Kam’s method↗
NASA NTRS2014

Controllable Multi-Functional Heat Exchanger for Space Applications

Team Spacering will design SpaceRing, a cooling and waste heat recycling system that addresses NASA’s interest for a cooling and power-generating unit in its prototype deep space habitat[1]. The merits of this system are as follows: - Controllable cooling is critical in maintaining a habitable environment and in the functionality of life support systems, powering electronics and other devices in a spacecraft. - Power is expensive to produce in a space environment. Converting wasted thermal energy into electricity will save energy and money for the space station. Space habitation is a highly complex endeavor. Consequently, the SpaceRing must adhere to additional constraints, which include: - Lack of natural fluid or gas convection due to micro-gravity environment - Limited range for heat source and cold sink temperature - Subject to high fluctuations of incoming thermal energy - Minimal weight due to the high cost of transporting items into space After consulting with NASA and experts in thermal studies, several design objectives were identified and are listed below in order of importance: - High cooling capacity - Reliable safety control and alert system - Maximization of energy generation from wasted heat - Optimization of cooling capability and power generation - Long operational life and minimization of maintenance In space, conventional cooling systems utilize passive heat pipe systems for small-scale heat rejection and pumped pipes with heat exchangers for large-scale heat rejection. Thermal power generation in space is mainly achieved by using thermoelectric material that produces electric energy from temperature differentials. We propose a design that combines cooling and thermoelectric power generation. Using a hot pipe connected to a heat source, a cold pipe connected to a radiator, a heat exchanger in contact with both pipes, and a pump in each pipe to move the fluid, we make an active cooling system. The thermoelectric material is inserted in the heat exchanger between the hot and cold pipes to extract energy from the maximum temperature difference coming from the two pipes. It also provides controllable cooling capacity through the use of the thermoelectric material as cooling modules. We have tested our system under target heat source and sink conditions and measured the temperatures and flow rates. Our preliminary results are promising, demonstrating the output of 25 Watts of power on average. We are in the process of running control tests to compare the heat transfer performance without the thermoelectric generators, which is vital in determining whether or not the generators introduce an unacceptable amount of thermal resistance. While some control tests have been run already, the results have been noisy. We have modified our testing environment and data acquisition methods to allow for simple comparison between the control test results and thermoelectric performance results. Lastly, we have modified the heat exchanger design slightly to include acrylic baffles. This will allow the heat to flow through the heat exchanger more efficiently. We have presented our preliminary results to NASA and will deliver the final product by the end of May 2014.

Lee Xiong↗
DOE OSTI2020

SQUARE: Strategic Quantum Ancilla Reuse for Modular Quantum Programs via Cost-Effective Uncomputation

Compiling high-level quantum programs to machines that are size constrained (i.e. limited number of quantum bits) and time constrained (i.e. limited number of quantum operations) is challenging. In this paper, we present SQUARE (Strategic QUantum Ancilla REuse), a compilation infrastructure that tackles allocation and reclamation of scratch qubits (called ancilla) in modular quantum programs. At its core, SQUARE strategically performs uncomputation to create opportunities for qubit reuse. Current Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) computers and forward-looking Fault-Tolerant (FT) quantum computers have fundamentally different constraints such as data locality, instruction parallelism, and communication overhead. Our heuristic-based ancilla-reuse algorithm balances these considerations and fits computations into resource-constrained NISQ or FT quantum machines, throttling parallelism when necessary. To precisely capture the workload of a program, we propose an improved metric, the "active quantum volume," and use this metric to evaluate the effectiveness of our algorithm. Furthermore, our results show that SQUARE improves the average success rate of NISQ applications by 1.47X. Surprisingly, the additional gates for uncomputation create ancilla with better locality, and result in substantially fewer swap gates and less gate noise overall. SQUARE also achieves an average reduction of 1.5X (and up to 9.6X) in active quantum volume for FT machines.

compiler optimization↗
DOE OSTI2016

Final Report, DOE Early Career Award: Predictive modeling of complex physical systems: new tools for statistical inference, uncertainty quantification, and experimental design

Predictive simulation of complex physical systems increasingly rests on the interplay of experimental observations with computational models. Key inputs, parameters, or structural aspects of models may be incomplete or unknown, and must be developed from indirect and limited observations. At the same time, quantified uncertainties are needed to qualify computational predictions in the support of design and decision-making. In this context, Bayesian statistics provides a foundation for inference from noisy and limited data, but at prohibitive computional expense. This project intends to make rigorous predictive modeling *feasible* in complex physical systems, via accelerated and scalable tools for uncertainty quantification, Bayesian inference, and experimental design. Specific objectives are as follows: 1. Develop adaptive posterior approximations and dimensionality reduction approaches for Bayesian inference in high-dimensional nonlinear systems. 2. Extend accelerated Bayesian methodologies to large-scale {\em sequential} data assimilation, fully treating nonlinear models and non-Gaussian state and parameter distributions. 3. Devise efficient surrogate-based methods for Bayesian model selection and the learning of model structure. 4. Develop scalable simulation/optimization approaches to nonlinear Bayesian experimental design, for both parameter inference and model selection. 5. Demonstrate these inferential tools on chemical kinetic models in reacting flow, constructing and refining thermochemical and electrochemical models from limited data. Demonstrate Bayesian filtering on canonical stochastic PDEs and in the dynamic estimation of inhomogeneous subsurface properties and flow fields.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗