leonarski_fandClaude Opus 5
62ca2b24f6
proteinScore and iceScore are saturating scores in [0,1] that answer presence, not quality: a superb crystal and a barely-diffracting one both read near 1, and neither the spot count nor the resolution enters either of them as a term. iceRingScore already reports a magnitude - a ratio, unbounded - which is not a number that can be thresholded; these are. The protein score counts distinct d SHELLS above 5 A rather than spots, so a parasitic ring in the low-resolution band cannot accumulate evidence, and weights each spot against the frame's own median so a scattering of the weakest detections cannot fill a shell either. The ice score carries two channels and takes the stronger: a radial one over the azimuthal profile, which runs the hexagonal and the CUBIC phase as separate hypotheses and decides between them at the end (flash-cooled loops show cubic or stacking-disordered ice at least as often as hexagonal, the two share only three lines, and dropping the cubic hypothesis costs about 5 pp on iced loops), and a spot one that reads an excess on the ice radii against the same band slid to every ice-free offset, which is what catches ice arriving as discrete crystallites and leaving the radial profile flat. Both read d out of the geometry, so both move with a beam-centre error; the centre is not fitted here, and the one they were computed with is written beside them as scoreBeamCenterX/Y so a later rescoring can tell an algorithm disagreement from a geometry one. Ported from validated prototypes and checked against them frame by frame on stored data: mean absolute difference 2.7e-5 (protein), 1.3e-8 (ice radial) and 3.4e-4 (ice spots). On a 41-loop battery the protein score reaches 98.4% of confirmed-protein frames and 0.00% of water frames, and finds no cluster on any water or ice raster. Cost is 0.01 ms/frame for the protein score and 0.08-0.32 ms/frame for the ice score. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EFEJG6WBQv8th4UJFNe53N
Jungfraujoch Frontend
Building
To build web interface:
cd frontend_ui
npm install
npm run openapi
npm run build
Available Scripts
In the project directory, you can run:
npm start
Runs the app in the development mode.
The page will reload if you make edits.
You will also see any lint errors in the console.
npm test
Launches the test runner in the interactive watch mode.
See the section about running tests for more information.
npm run build
Builds the app for production to the dist folder.
It correctly bundles React in production mode and optimizes the build for the best performance.
The build is minified and the filenames include the hashes.
Your app is ready to be deployed!
npm run openapi
npm audit findings
npm audit currently reports 17 advisories (3 high, 13 moderate, 1 low). All of
them live in build-time tooling and never reach the production bundle
shipped to the browser. Summary of the chains:
| Source dep | Vulnerable transitives | When it runs |
|---|---|---|
@redocly/cli |
@opentelemetry/*, dompurify (via redoc), ws (via simple-websocket), js-yaml, protobufjs, @babel/core |
npm run redocly / redocly4broker — static OpenAPI HTML generation |
vite |
esbuild@0.27.x |
Dev server and dep pre-bundling. Production build uses Rollup. |
vite-plugin-svgr |
@babel/core, js-yaml (via cosmiconfig) |
Vite build plugin |
openapi-typescript-codegen |
js-yaml |
npm run openapi — TS client generation |
Notes on the high-severity items:
esbuildGHSA-gv7w-rqvm-qjhr is a Deno-specific RCE viaNPM_CONFIG_REGISTRY; GHSA-g7r4-m6w7-qqqr is an arbitrary-file-read in the dev server on Windows. Neither applies to a Linux build of the production bundle.wsGHSA-96hv-2xvq-fx4p only matters whensimple-websocketopens a socket, which happens during docs generation, not at runtime.
npm audit fix cannot resolve any of these without downgrading
@redocly/cli (no real fix) or jumping vite to a major that switches the
bundler to Rolldown.