AnalysisGroupD: Difference between revisions
From canSAS
 (Created page with "NOTES FOR GROUP D  XXXXXX Leading")  | 
				No edit summary  | 
				||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
NOTES FOR GROUP D  | NOTES FOR GROUP D  | ||
Tim Snow Leading  | |||
==Modelling 2D data==  | |||
* Everyone agreed that modelling 2D data has the potential to deliver more information than analysing 1D data, however, routinely analysing 2D data is not currently done  | |||
* Fitting of 2D data requires careful thought if down sampling is required as features could be missed, conversely fitting a Pilatus 2M image will take a long time  | |||
==Simulations and evolving algorithms==  | |||
* Projects coupling simulation with data fitting exist, although are typically in the earlier stages of development (i.e. SASSIE)  | |||
* The next generation of algorithms are anticipated to revolve around either optimised simulation fitting or machine learning  | |||
* Both approaches require a computing resource beyond a single desktop/laptop  | |||
* Collaborations with institution HPC or national HPC are likely required  | |||
* Additionally, links to commercial HPC/machine learning could be used for data fitting  | |||
==Automation==  | |||
* Automation of data acquisition requires care as many variables change dynamically  | |||
** Automatic alignment of some sample environments is challenging to human operators, let alone algorithms  | |||
** Deducing when 'good' data has been obtained is tricky, especially if the sample is liable to beam damage  | |||
** Determining an experimental endpoint could prove tricky too  | |||
* Automation of static scans is a good starting point  | |||
* Automatic data reduction should follow on from DAQ, however, fitting will likely require human intervention  | |||
* Automatic creation and archival of sample meta-data would prove highly useful for machine learning  | |||
==Collaborative funding strategies==  | |||
* Scientific funding is, as ever, extremely tight (however, also under increasingly close scrutiny as well...)  | |||
* Combining efforts and collaborating is likely to give governments / funding bodies good reason to fund projects as facilities / institutions can point towards shared (i.e. free(ish)) resources and get 'more bang for your buck'  | |||
* Finding common areas would be a positive step  | |||
** Data analysis  | |||
** Data fitting  | |||
** Identification of data quality  | |||
** Ways to automate different SAS measurements/techniques  | |||
** Code development  | |||
** Code maintenance/archiving  | |||
** Experimental meta-data  | |||
** Computing resource sharing (i.e. HPC)  | |||
* Events, such as canSAS, a good way to start such links  | |||
* Attending conferences either nationally or internationally a good way to form links with institutions, companies or funding bodies as well as other researchers  | |||
Latest revision as of 15:38, 14 June 2017
NOTES FOR GROUP D
Tim Snow Leading
Modelling 2D data
- Everyone agreed that modelling 2D data has the potential to deliver more information than analysing 1D data, however, routinely analysing 2D data is not currently done
 - Fitting of 2D data requires careful thought if down sampling is required as features could be missed, conversely fitting a Pilatus 2M image will take a long time
 
Simulations and evolving algorithms
- Projects coupling simulation with data fitting exist, although are typically in the earlier stages of development (i.e. SASSIE)
 - The next generation of algorithms are anticipated to revolve around either optimised simulation fitting or machine learning
 - Both approaches require a computing resource beyond a single desktop/laptop
 - Collaborations with institution HPC or national HPC are likely required
 - Additionally, links to commercial HPC/machine learning could be used for data fitting
 
Automation
- Automation of data acquisition requires care as many variables change dynamically
- Automatic alignment of some sample environments is challenging to human operators, let alone algorithms
 - Deducing when 'good' data has been obtained is tricky, especially if the sample is liable to beam damage
 - Determining an experimental endpoint could prove tricky too
 
 
- Automation of static scans is a good starting point
 - Automatic data reduction should follow on from DAQ, however, fitting will likely require human intervention
 - Automatic creation and archival of sample meta-data would prove highly useful for machine learning
 
Collaborative funding strategies
- Scientific funding is, as ever, extremely tight (however, also under increasingly close scrutiny as well...)
 - Combining efforts and collaborating is likely to give governments / funding bodies good reason to fund projects as facilities / institutions can point towards shared (i.e. free(ish)) resources and get 'more bang for your buck'
 - Finding common areas would be a positive step
- Data analysis
 - Data fitting
 - Identification of data quality
 - Ways to automate different SAS measurements/techniques
 - Code development
 - Code maintenance/archiving
 - Experimental meta-data
 - Computing resource sharing (i.e. HPC)
 
 
- Events, such as canSAS, a good way to start such links
 - Attending conferences either nationally or internationally a good way to form links with institutions, companies or funding bodies as well as other researchers