Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Physics consistent machine learning framework for inverse modeling with applications to ICF capsule implosions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage neural pipeline can recover initial conditions and equation-of-state parameters for ICF capsules from time series of noisy radiographs, then replay them through a hydrodynamics code to obtain density fields, shocks, and…

desk verdict A solid synthetic-data pipeline for inferring ICF parameters from radiographs, with honest limits that the abstract oversteps. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20192 v2 pith:CARHIFGH submitted 2024-12-28 physics.comp-ph cs.LGhep-ph

Daniel A. Serino , Evan Bell , Marc Klasky , Ben S. Southworth , Balasubramanya Nadiga , Trevor Wilcox , Oleg Korobkin This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phcs.LGhep-ph MSC 68T0765M3276N15 PACS 52.70.La52.57.Fg
keywords inverseproblemsinertialconfinementfusionmachinelearningRichtmyer-MeshkovinstabilityMie-Grüneisenequationofstateradiographicimaginghydrodynamicfeaturesuncertaintyquantification
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

This paper argues that the outgoing shock profile and the outer material edge, both reliably visible in noisy radiographic image sequences, carry enough information to determine the equation-of-state parameters and initial perturbation structure of an imploding inertial confinement fusion capsule. It proposes a two-stage machine-learning pipeline: a radiograph-to-features network extracts low-dimensional cosine-harmonic coefficients of shock and edge from synthetic radiographs, and a features-to-parameters network maps those coefficients to Mie-Grüneisen EOS parameters, implosion velocity, and perturbation harmonics. The estimated parameters, when re-run through a full-order hydrodynamics solver, reproduce the observed density fields, shock and edge features, and Richtmyer-Meshkov peak-to-trough growth within roughly one pixel of error. The paper also claims that features produced by a different EOS model (Tillotson, and to a lesser degree Sesame) can be mapped onto the analytical Mie-Grüneisen parameters, indicating the network learns physical structure rather than a fixed parameterization. If correct, this would make a noisy single-view X-ray diagnostic useful for uncertainty-quantified parameter estimation in HEDP and ICF experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cosine-harmonic feature representation of the outgoing shock and outer edge, computed by subpixel feature extraction from synthetic radiographs and compressed to $N^{\mathrm{shock}}=8$ and $N^{\mathrm{edge}}=5$ harmonics. This low-dimensional curve representation is what R2FNet learns to predict from noisy projections and what F2PNet learns to invert; the forward surrogate inside F2PNet, built with transformer layers, provides the parameters-to-features map that allows training with a self-consistency loss. The same features, once parameters are estimated, can be used to initialize a full-order hydrodynamics solve, which is what enforces thermodynamic and hydrodynamic consistency.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to take an experimentally recorded radiograph sequence from an ICF or double-shell implosion (or a synthetic radiograph generated with a substantially different EOS table, noise model, or perturbation profile outside the training cube), run the trained R2FNet-F2PNet pipeline, and compare the predicted shock/edge features and the hydro-code density fields against the measured or ground-truth fields; large feature errors or density RMSEs would falsify the claim that the sparse cosine representation is EOS-invariant and covers the relevant feature space.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a sparse set of hydrodynamic features—the radius of the outgoing shock and the outer material edge, each expanded as $\sum_j F_j^{(i)}\cos(2j\theta)$ with 8 and 5 harmonics respectively—forms an information bottleneck through which the inverse problem becomes tractable. From four noisy radiographs at times $n=25,30,35,40$, the R2FNet extracts these features; the F2PNet, a conditional variational autoencoder with a transformer-based forward surrogate, then produces a distribution of EOS parameters $\{c_s, s_1, \Gamma_0, c_V\}$ and initial-condition parameters (implosion velocity and harmonic coefficients $F_1,\dots,F_8$). The paper shows that these estimates, fed into the full hydrodynamics code, yield density fields and RMI topologies consistent with the ground truth to numerical accuracy, and that most parameters are recovered with high correlation on the test set, with $\Gamma_0$ and $c_V$ evidently not constrained by the late-time features.

Load-bearing premise

The approach assumes that the 14,400 synthetic simulations—built from 20 hand-chosen perturbation profiles, 4 velocities, and a coarse grid of Mie-Grüneisen parameters—cover the feature space of any real or alternative-EOS radiograph the network will see; the paper's own Sesame EOS result and the degraded leave-one-out performance on profile 20 show that this coverage can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Estimated parameters can be fed into a full hydrodynamics solver rather than only a surrogate, yielding density fields, shock and edge locations, and RMI peak-to-trough growth that are consistent with the noisy radiographs.
  • The 0th shock harmonic alone suffices to recover $v_{\mathrm{impl}}$, $s_1$, and $c_s$ with high correlation, so even a very degraded radiograph may still constrain these parameters.
  • Parameter recovery degrades when features are taken only from later times, so early-time features (frames 25–40) carry more useful information; larger time spans improve inference.
  • Features generated under the Tillotson EOS map onto Mie-Grüneisen parameters well enough to reproduce the density field, suggesting a single analytical EOS family can represent some unseen EOS models; the Sesame case shows the limitations.
  • The generative decoder produces a distribution of parameter estimates, providing an uncertainty estimate along with the point prediction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: a natural extension, one the paper does not carry out, is to use the same feature set as the observation operator in a Bayesian or variational data-assimilation loop on real experimental radiographs; the paper's synthetic-radiograph model would need validation against measured noise and scatter first.
  • Inference: the insensitivity of $\Gamma_0$ and $c_V$ suggests that late-time shock and edge features alone cannot identify the full Mie-Grüneisen parameter set; adding an independent measurement (e.g., velocity interferometry or a material-release diagnostic) may be needed to constrain them.
  • Inference: the leave-one-profile-out failure for profile 20 implies a practical rule for designing training sets: profiles should be chosen to cover feature-space clusters, not just parameter-space combinations; one could quantify this by clustering the cosine-harmonic features of prospective simulations.
  • Inference: if the EOS-invariance claim holds more broadly, the framework could be used to map a tabular or unknown EOS onto a parameterized analytical model, effectively providing a reduced-order EOS surrogate for use in other simulations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an ML pipeline for inferring initial conditions (implosion velocity and inner-surface perturbation harmonics) and Mie-Grüneisen EOS parameters (cs, s1, Γ0, cv) from a time series of noisy radiographs of an ICF capsule implosion. A radiograph-to-features network extracts sparse cosine-harmonic representations of the outgoing shock and outer edge, and a conditional-VAE/transformer features-to-parameters network predicts a posterior distribution over the parameters; a forward surrogate is jointly trained with a consistency loss. The authors test the pipeline on held-out synthetic cases, show that the estimated parameters, when fed into a full-order hydrodynamic solver, reproduce density fields, shock/edge features, and Richtmyer-Meshkov peak-to-trough growth within reported errors, and examine transfer to Tillotson and Sesame EOS models.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the framework would be a useful step toward quantitative inference of initial conditions and material parameters from radiographic sequences in HEDP, and the idea of closing the loop with a full-order hydrodynamic solver to enforce physical consistency is a valuable design principle. The paper provides a clear in-silico demonstration with a large simulation dataset, a two-stage radiograph-to-features and features-to-parameters architecture, and an external consistency check using a full-order hydrodynamics code. It also honestly reports model-mismatch and identifiability failures. However, the strong generalization and EOS-invariance claims go beyond the presented evidence, so the significance is real but more modest than the abstract suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §3.3] The abstract states that 'features resulting from an unknown EOS model can be successfully mapped onto parameters of a chosen analytical EOS model, implying that network predictions are learning physics, with a degree of invariance to the underlying choice of EOS model,' yet the Sesame EOS case in Figure 11b shows large errors in the density field and shock, which the text attributes to out-of-distribution features. The 'degree of invariance' claim is therefore supported only by the Tillotson case, and the manuscript should qualify this claim or restrict it to EOS models whose features lie within the training manifold.
  2. [§3.1 and Tables 2–3] The reported correlation coefficients for Γ0 and cv are essentially zero across all training-set sizes and time-frame choices (e.g., Table 2, row 70%: Γ0 = 0.252, cv = -0.023), indicating that these parameters are not identifiable from the chosen features. The text in §3.1 acknowledges this, but the abstract and introduction state without qualification that the framework 'directly infer[s] such parameters' and 'accurately infer[s] initial conditions and EOS parameters.' The parameter-recovery claim should be restricted to the identifiable subset (vimpl, perturbation harmonics, s1, cs) or accompanied by a clear identifiability caveat.
  3. [§3.2, Figure 7] The leave-one-profile-out study shows that profile 20, which forms its own cluster in the feature space, leads to degraded parameter correlations (vimpl = 0.571, cs = 0.660). This is direct evidence that the pipeline interpolates within the sampled training manifold but does not generalize to initial-condition profiles that are not represented in the training set. Because one of the stated applications is an experimental diagnostic for unseen capsule perturbations, the generalizability claim should be tempered and the limitation stated explicitly in the abstract and conclusions.
  4. [§2.1 and §3.3] The training set is built from 20 discrete perturbation profiles, 4 velocities, and a coarse grid of EOS parameters, and the model-mismatch study demonstrates failure when a target EOS (Sesame) produces features outside this range. The framework should be presented as an interpolation tool within the training distribution, not as a general inverse-mapping method, unless additional coverage experiments (e.g., interpolation over a denser parameter grid or a larger profile library) are provided.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] The opening sentence refers to 'R2PNet' but the network is called R2FNet elsewhere in the paper; please make the acronym consistent.
  2. [§3.3 and Figure 13] The text contains the typo 'The the L2 errors', and the caption of Figure 13 as well as Section 3.3 use 'Mie-Grünieson'; the correct spelling is 'Mie-Grüneisen'.
  3. [Abstract and §4] The misspelling 'Ritchmeyer-Meshkov' appears in the abstract and in Section 4; the standard form is 'Richtmyer-Meshkov'.
  4. [Abstract and §4] The claim of being the 'first demonstration of recovering both thermodynamic and hydrodynamic consistent density fields from noisy radiographs' would benefit from a more explicit comparison with prior works (e.g., Refs. 47, 59, 62), since those works also recover density fields from noisy radiographs but without the full parameter-estimation-plus-hydrodynamics loop.
  5. [Data availability] The data availability statement says data are 'available from the corresponding author on reasonable request'; providing the trained network weights and the preprocessed feature datasets would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the parameter-recovery claim is validated on held-out simulations and with a full-order hydrodynamics solver, not by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a supervised train/test pipeline: synthetic radiographs are passed through R2FNet to predict shock/edge cosine-harmonic features, F2PNet maps those features to Mie-Grüneisen EOS parameters and initial conditions, and the recovered parameters are then run through a full-order hydrodynamics solver to produce density fields that are compared with ground-truth simulations on a held-out portion of the data. None of the tested quantities is used to define the network targets in a way that forces the comparison: the parameters are inferred from radiographic features, and the density fields are produced by a separate forward solve rather than by the networks. The self-consistency loss L_consistency is an internal training objective, and the paper separately evaluates against the true forward model in Section 3.3. Self-citations to Refs. [47, 59, 76] are contextual support for feature robustness and are not load-bearing for the central inverse-modeling result. The reported failures for profile 20 and for the Sesame EOS are explicit out-of-distribution coverage limitations, not evidence that a fitted quantity was renamed as a prediction. No equation or parameter in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The claim of 'first demonstration' is an overstatement risk, but it is not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of domain assumptions about the physics (Euler equations, MG EOS, axisymmetry), the imaging model, the feature extraction, and the representativeness of the 14,400 simulation training set. No new physical entities are introduced; the cVAE latent variables are computational devices for representing posterior uncertainty, not physical postulates.

free parameters (5)
  • Cosine harmonic truncation N_shock=8, N_edge=5
    Chosen in Section 2.3 as a low-dimensional representation of the shock and edge with 'sufficient accuracy across the dataset'. This truncation is the information bottleneck for all downstream parameter inference.
  • Consistency loss weight alpha = 1 after pretraining (alpha=0)
    Appendix C. The self-consistency term is switched on after pretraining; no sensitivity analysis of alpha is reported.
  • cVAE latent dimension, transformer depth, heads, feedforward sizes = k=64, H=8, 2 transformer blocks, FFN inner dimension 2048 and hidden 200
    Appendix C. These architecture choices shape the approximate posterior and were selected without a systematic sensitivity study.
  • Number of generator latent samples per posterior estimate = 25
    Sections 3.1 and 3.3 use 25 realizations to form parameter distributions; no convergence check on the number of samples is reported.
  • Time frames used for training features = Baseline {25,30,35,40}; alternatives tested
    Section 3.2, Table 3. The choice of time frames is a hand-picked input that materially changes accuracy.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Compressible Euler equations without radiation govern the implosion, with air substituted for D-T fuel.
    Section 1.2: 'We assume a governing physical model given by the compressible Euler equations, dropping higher-order effects of radiation...' and Section 2.1 uses air instead of D-T. If radiation or fuel burn changes the observable shock and edge, the synthetic training distribution is not representative of real ICF experiments.
  • domain assumption The Mie-Grüneisen EOS with fixed rho0 and T0 and unknown {cs, s1, Gamma0, cv} is adequate for the materials and regimes studied.
    Section 2.1, Eq. 1. The Sesame mismatch result shows this assumption can fail, producing large errors in density and shock reconstruction (Figure 11b).
  • domain assumption Azimuthal symmetry allows a 2D cylindrical description of a pseudo-3D implosion.
    Section 2.1: 'We assume azimuthal symmetry, therefore the density at any time can be described in 2D cylindrical coordinates.' Realistic 3D perturbations and non-axisymmetric effects are excluded.
  • domain assumption The synthetic radiograph model, including cone-beam projection, blur, scatter, and Poisson noise, produces images statistically similar to experimental radiographs.
    Section 2.2. The intended use as an experimental diagnostic depends on this transfer; the paper does not validate on experimental images.
  • ad hoc to paper Maximal-gradient detection plus subpixel partial-area fitting identifies the true shock and outer edge, and truncation to 8 and 5 cosine harmonics preserves the information needed for parameter inference.
    Section 2.3. The feature extraction pipeline is inherited from Refs 47, 59, 80 and is not independently validated for the parameter inference task.
  • ad hoc to paper A sufficiently expansive analytical EOS parameterization can represent an unknown EOS model, so features generated by another EOS can be mapped to MG parameters that reproduce the features.
    Discussion: 'a sufficiently expansive parameter model is capable of representing unknown models.' This is the load-bearing assumption for the EOS-invariance claim; the Sesame experiment partially contradicts it.
  • domain assumption The random 80/10/10 split of the 14,400 simulations produces a test set that represents the relevant feature space.
    Section 2.4. With only 20 discrete perturbation profiles and a coarse EOS grid, random splits can overstate generalization; the leave-one-profile-out study (Figure 7) shows cluster-dependent performance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics consistent machine learning framework for inverse modeling with applications to ICF capsule implosions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CARHIFGH

@misc{pith2026241220192,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics consistent machine learning framework for inverse modeling with applications to ICF capsule implosions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CARHIFGH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20192}
}
read the original abstract

In high energy density physics (HEDP) and inertial confinement fusion (ICF), predictive modeling is complicated by uncertainty in parameters that characterize various aspects of the modeled system, such as those characterizing material properties, equation of state (EOS), opacities, and initial conditions. Typically, however, these parameters are not directly observable. What is observed instead is a time sequence of radiographic projections using X-rays. In this work, we define a set of sparse hydrodynamic features derived from the outgoing shock profile and outer material edge, which can be obtained from radiographic measurements, to directly infer such parameters. Our machine learning (ML)-based methodology involves a pipeline of two architectures, a radiograph-to-features network (R2FNet) and a features-to-parameters network (F2PNet), that are trained independently and later combined to approximate a posterior distribution for the parameters from radiographs. We show that the estimated parameters can be used in a hydrodynamics code to obtain density fields and hydrodynamic shock and outer edge features that are consistent with the data. Finally, we demonstrate that features resulting from an unknown EOS model can be successfully mapped onto parameters of a chosen analytical EOS model, implying that network predictions are learning physics, with a degree of invariance to the underlying choice of EOS model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20192 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example plots of the density evolution (a) and the various RMI profiles representing each inner surface perturbation profile at a fixed time frame n = 40 (b). The images are 150x150 pixels representing the domain 0, 15 44L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sample (r,z) projection of the density (1st column), zoomed-in view of the Richtmyer-Meshkov interface (2nd column), synthetic radiograph (3rd columns), and a zoomed-in view of the radiograph (4th columns) labeled with the RMI interface (left half) and Canny edge labels (right half). Consequently, characterization of the initial conditions responsible for the instability as well as material properties characterizing… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a): Example double shell capsule specification based on the 1.06 MJ yield design from Ref.77. (b): 3D mock-up of a shell with a perturbation on the interior surface. (c): projection of the shell onto (r,z) coordinates. The inner radius is parameterized by the angle, u between the white dotted line and the r axis. (d): Plot of the 20 separate profiles for radius of the perturbed inner surface verses angle u. Options… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Prediction performance of the parameter estimation pipeline on the testing set. (a): Scatter plots depicting the agreement between the scaled features predicted using R2FNet on the test set of noisy radiographs (vertical axis) and the corresponding scaled ground truth …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Errors of reconstructed shock and edge features reconstructed using the forward model on parameters estimates from the decoder on the testing set. The top row corresponds to shock features and the bottom row corresponds to edge features. The first two columns show hist…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a): Line plot illustrating the dynamics of the 0 th order harmonic coefficients of the shock, F (s) 0 , and edge, F (e) 1 for a selected example in the dataset. (b): Corresponding line plot illustrating the dynamics of the next three higher order harmonic coefficients…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a): Distribution of initial perturbation profiles in the dataset as a function of the 0th and 1st shock harmonics at n = 25. (b): Correlation coefficients of initial velocity and EOS parameter predictions evaluated on profiles that were omitted from the training set. …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between three ground truth density fields and ensembles of density fields obtained through using estimated parameters in a hydrodynamics code. For each ensemble along the rows, this plot shows the ground truth density field, density fields corresponding to t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between three ground truth features (black lines) and ensembles of features (blue lines) obtained through using estimated parameters in a hydrodynamics code. For each ensemble along the rows, this plot shows the comparison of the shock features, histogram of…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example using estimated parameters of ensemble A in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between density fields and shock and edge features produced using the (a) Tillotson EOS and (b) Sesame EOS and the corresponding density fields and shock and edge features reconstructed using estimated parameters for the Mie-Grüneison EOS model. Predicted s…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Diagram depicting the radiograph-to-features network (R2FNet). The input is a sequence of noisy radiographs and the output is a corresponding sequence of predicted shock and edge features. Because the cosine harmonic coefficients of the features of interest have very …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Diagram depicting the features-to-parameters network (F2PNet). The EOS and IC parameters represent the input to the forward model and output of the decoder. The late time shock and edge features are outputs of the encoder. The late time shock and edge features and the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Learning robust parameter inference and density reconstruction in flyer plate impact experiments

    physics.comp-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A conditional variational autoencoder can infer Mie-Grüneisen and P-alpha porosity parameters from radiographs, but only when trained on both low and high impact velocity data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Fryxell, B.et al.Flash: An adaptive mesh hydrodynamics code for modeling astrophysical thermonuclear flashes.The Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.131, 273 (2000)

    work page 2000

  2. [3]

    & Zimmerman, G

    Marinak, M., Haan, S., Dittrich, T., Tipton, R. & Zimmerman, G. A comparison of three-dimensional multimode hydrodynamic instability growth on various national ignition facility capsule designs with hydra simulations.Phys. Plasmas5, 1125–1132 (1998)

    work page 1998

  3. [4]

    & Harte, J

    Zimmerman, G., Kershaw, D., Bailey, D. & Harte, J. Lasnex code for inertial confinement fusion. Tech. Rep., California Univ. (1977)

    work page 1977

  4. [5]

    InAPS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting Abstracts, vol

    Keller, D.et al.Draco—a new multidimensional hydrocode. InAPS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting Abstracts, vol. 41, BP1–39 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [6]

    M.et al.The development of a high-resolution eulerian radiation-hydrodynamics simulation capability for laser-driven hohlraums.Phys

    Haines, B. M.et al.The development of a high-resolution eulerian radiation-hydrodynamics simulation capability for laser-driven hohlraums.Phys. Plasmas29(2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [7]

    M., Thompson, S

    McGlaun, J. M., Thompson, S. & Elrick, M. Cth: A three-dimensional shock wave physics code.Int. J. Impact Eng.10, 351–360 (1990)

    work page 1990

  7. [8]

    Weseloh, W. N. Pagosa: a multi-dimensional, multi-material parallel hydrodynamics code for material flow and deformation (u). Tech. Rep., Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States) (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [9]

    & Weatherby, J

    Summers, R., Wong, M., Boucheron, E. & Weatherby, J. Alegra–a massively parallel h-adaptive code for solid dynamics. Tech. Rep., Sandia National Lab.(SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States) (1997)

    work page 1997

Show all 74 references
  1. [10]

    review letters129, 075001 (2022)

    Abu-Shawareb, H.et al.Lawson criterion for ignition exceeded in an inertial fusion experiment.Phys. review letters129, 075001 (2022). 11.Weber, C.et al.Improving ICF implosion performance with alternative capsule supports.Phys. Plasmas24(2017)

    2022

  2. [12]

    13.Lindl, J

    Gaffney, J.et al.A review of equation-of-state models for inertial confinement fusion materials.High Energy Density Phys.28, 7–24 (2018). 13.Lindl, J. Icf: recent achievements and perspectives.Il Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970)106, 1467–1487 (1993). 14.Rosen, M. The physics of rad...

    2018

  3. [16]

    Rosen, M. D. The physics issues that determine inertial confinement fusion target gain and driver requirements: A tutorial. Phys. Plasmas6, 1690–1699 (1999)

    1999

  4. [17]

    Thomas, V . A. & Kares, R. J. Drive asymmetry and the origin of turbulence in an icf implosion.Phys. review letters109, 075004 (2012)

    2012

  5. [18]

    & Hollenbach, R

    Barker, L. & Hollenbach, R. Laser interferometer for measuring high velocities of any reflecting surface.J. Appl. Phys.43, 4669–4675 (1972)

    1972

  6. [19]

    M.et al.Overview of the line-imaging visar diagnostic at the national ignition facility (nif)

    Malone, R. M.et al.Overview of the line-imaging visar diagnostic at the national ignition facility (nif). InInternational Optical Design Conference, ThA5 (Optica Publishing Group, 2006)

    2006

  7. [20]

    scientific instruments75, 4916–4929 (2004)

    Celliers, P.et al.Line-imaging velocimeter for shock diagnostics at the omega laser facility.Rev. scientific instruments75, 4916–4929 (2004)

    2004

  8. [21]

    McCoy, C. A. & Knudson, M. D. Lagrangian technique to calculate window interface velocity from shock velocity measurements: Application for quartz windows.J. Appl. Phys.122(2017). 15/18

    2017

  9. [22]

    J., Gust, W

    Ahrens, T. J., Gust, W. & Royce, E. Material strength effect in the shock compression of alumina.J. Appl. Phys.39, 4610–4616 (1968)

    1968

  10. [23]

    & Lipkin, J

    Asay, J. & Lipkin, J. A self-consistent technique for estimating the dynamic yield strength of a shock-loaded material.J. Appl. Phys.49, 4242–4247 (1978)

    1978

  11. [24]

    & Asay, J

    Lipkin, J. & Asay, J. Reshock and release of shock-compressed 6061-t6 aluminum.J. applied physics48, 182–189 (1977)

    1977

  12. [25]

    & Ding, J

    Brown, J., Alexander, C., Asay, J., V ogler, T. & Ding, J. Extracting strength from high pressure ramp-release experiments. J. Appl. Phys.114(2013)

    2013

  13. [26]

    F., Blewett, P

    Barnes, J. F., Blewett, P. J., McQueen, R. G., Meyer, K. A. & Venable, D. Taylor instability in solids.J. Appl. Phys.45, 727–732 (1974)

    1974

  14. [27]

    & Weber, S

    Colvin, J., Legrand, M., Remington, B., Schurtz, G. & Weber, S. A model for instability growth in accelerated solid metals. J. applied physics93, 5287–5301 (2003). 28.Barton, N. R.et al.A multiscale strength model for extreme loading conditions.J. applied physics109(2011). 29....

    2003

  15. [30]

    R., Cela, J

    Piriz, A. R., Cela, J. L., Tahir, N. A. & Hoffmann, D. H. Richtmyer-meshkov instability in elastic-plastic media.Phys. Rev. E78, 056401 (2008)

    2008

  16. [31]

    Piriz, A., Cela, J. L. & Tahir, N. Richtmyer–meshkov instability as a tool for evaluating material strength under extreme conditions.Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A: Accel. Spectrometers, Detect. Assoc. Equip.606, 139–141 (2009)

    2009

  17. [32]

    review letters107, 264502 (2011)

    Dimonte, G.et al.Use of the richtmyer-meshkov instability to infer yield stress at high-energy densities.Phys. review letters107, 264502 (2011)

    2011

  18. [33]

    Fluid Mech.703, 60–84 (2012)

    Buttler, W.et al.Unstable richtmyer–meshkov growth of solid and liquid metals in vacuum.J. Fluid Mech.703, 60–84 (2012)

    2012

  19. [34]

    L., Lombardini, M., Pullin, D

    Ortega, A. L., Lombardini, M., Pullin, D. & Meiron, D. Numerical simulations of the richtmyer-meshkov instability in solid-vacuum interfaces using calibrated plasticity laws.Phys. Rev. E89, 033018 (2014). 35.Mikaelian, K. O. Shock-induced interface instability in viscous fluid...

    2014

  20. [36]

    Plohr, J. N. & Plohr, B. J. Linearized analysis of richtmyer–meshkov flow for elastic materials.J. Fluid Mech.537, 55–89 (2005)

    2005

  21. [37]

    B.et al.Using richtmyer–meshkov instabilities to estimate metal strength at very high rates

    Prime, M. B.et al.Using richtmyer–meshkov instabilities to estimate metal strength at very high rates. InDynamic Behavior of Materials, Volume 1: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Experimental and Applied Mechanics, 191–197 (Springer, 2016)

    2015

  22. [38]

    Thomas, V . A. & Kares, R. J. Drive asymmetry, turbulence and ignition failure in high convergence icf implosions. Tech. Rep., Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States) (2013)

    2013

  23. [39]

    Plasmas27(2020)

    Weber, C.et al.Mixing in icf implosions on the national ignition facility caused by the fill-tube.Phys. Plasmas27(2020)

    2020

  24. [40]

    Experimental study of the initial conditions of the rayleigh-taylor instability at the ablation front in inertial confinement fusion

    Delorme, B. Experimental study of the initial conditions of the rayleigh-taylor instability at the ablation front in inertial confinement fusion. Tech. Rep., Universite de Bordeaux (2015)

    2015

  25. [41]

    Plasmas26 (2019)

    Zhou, Y .et al.Turbulent mixing and transition criteria of flows induced by hydrodynamic instabilities.Phys. Plasmas26 (2019)

    2019

  26. [42]

    Proano, E. S. & Rollin, B. Toward a better understanding of hydrodynamic instabilities in inertial fusion approaches. In 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, 4676 (2017). 43.Schaeffer, D. B.et al.Proton imaging of high-energy-density laboratory plasmas.Rev. Mod. Phy...

    2017

  27. [45]

    & Tommasini, R

    Kozioziemski, B., Bachmann, B., Do, A. & Tommasini, R. X-ray imaging methods for high-energy density physics applications.Rev. Sci. Instruments94(2023)

    2023

  28. [46]

    review letters74, 3608 (1995)

    Endo, T.et al.Dynamic behavior of rippled shock waves and subsequently induced areal-density-perturbation growth in laser-irradiated foils.Phys. review letters74, 3608 (1995)

    1995

  29. [47]

    A., Klasky, M

    Serino, D. A., Klasky, M. L., Nadiga, B. T., Xu, X. & Wilcox, T. Reconstructing Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities from noisy radiographs using low dimensional features and attention-based neural networks.Opt. Express32, 43366–43386, DOI: 10.1364/OE.538495 (2024). 16/18

    2024 doi

  30. [48]

    & Luo, X

    Zhai, Z., Zou, L., Wu, Q. & Luo, X. Review of experimental richtmyer–meshkov instability in shock tube: from simple to complex.Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci.232, 2830–2849 (2018)

    2018

  31. [49]

    A.et al.Studying the richtmyer–meshkov instability in convergent geometry under high energy density conditions using the decel platform.Phys

    Yager-Elorriaga, D. A.et al.Studying the richtmyer–meshkov instability in convergent geometry under high energy density conditions using the decel platform.Phys. Plasmas29(2022)

    2022

  32. [50]

    Do, A.et al.High spatial resolution and contrast radiography of hydrodynamic instabilities at the national ignition facility. Phys. Plasmas29(2022)

    2022

  33. [51]

    & Luo, X

    Si, T., Long, T., Zhai, Z. & Luo, X. Experimental investigation of cylindrical converging shock waves interacting with a polygonal heavy gas cylinder.J. Fluid Mech.784, 225–251 (2015)

    2015

  34. [52]

    Shock-interface interaction: current research on the Richtmyer-Meshkov problem

    Rupert, V . Shock-interface interaction: current research on the Richtmyer-Meshkov problem. InShock Waves: Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Shock Waves, Held at Sendai, Japan 21–26 July 1991, 83–94 (Springer, 1992). 53.Brouillette, M. The Richtmyer-Meshkov in...

    2002

  35. [54]

    D: Nonlinear Phenom.423, 132838 (2021)

    Zhou, Y .et al.Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov instabilities: A journey through scales.Phys. D: Nonlinear Phenom.423, 132838 (2021)

    2021

  36. [55]

    Leinov, E.et al.Experimental and numerical investigation of the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability under re-shock conditions. J. Fluid Mech.626, 449–475 (2009)

    2009

  37. [56]

    L.et al.Richtmyer–Meshkov instability growth: experiment, simulation and theory.J

    Holmes, R. L.et al.Richtmyer–Meshkov instability growth: experiment, simulation and theory.J. Fluid Mech.389, 55–79 (1999)

    1999

  38. [57]

    Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing

    Zhou, Y . Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing. II.Phys. Reports 723, 1–160 (2017)

    2017

  39. [58]

    & Graham, M

    Zhang, Q. & Graham, M. J. A numerical study of Richtmyer–Meshkov instability driven by cylindrical shocks.Phys. Fluids10, 974–992 (1998)

    1998

  40. [59]

    Express30, 14432–14452 (2022)

    Hossain, M.et al.High-precision inversion of dynamic radiography using hydrodynamic features.Opt. Express30, 14432–14452 (2022)

    2022

  41. [60]

    D., Kolev, T

    Bello-Maldonado, P. D., Kolev, T. V ., Rieben, R. N. & Tomov, V . Z. A matrix-free hyperviscosity formulation for high-order ale hydrodynamics.Comput. & Fluids205, 104577 (2020)

    2020

  42. [61]

    A., Klasky, M., Burby, J

    Serino, D. A., Klasky, M., Burby, J. W. & Schei, J. L. Density reconstruction from noisy radiographs using an attention- based transformer network. InOptica Imaging Congress (3D, COSI, DH, FLatOptics, IS, pcAOP), JW2A.4 (Optica Publishing Group, 2023)

    2023

  43. [62]

    Nadiga, B. T. & Klasky, M. L. Degeneracy and deterministic/probabilistic inversions of radiographic data. LA-UR-23-25917 (2023). Sponsor: USDOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) ; USDOE ; LDRD

    2023

  44. [63]

    Le Pape, S.et al.Observation of a reflected shock in an indirectly driven spherical implosion at the national ignition facility.Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 225002 (2014). 64.Asch, M., Bocquet, M. & Nodet, M.Data assimilation: methods, algorithms, and applications(SIAM, 2016). 65.Smit...

    2014

  45. [66]

    & Liu, M

    Cai, Z., Chen, J. & Liu, M. Least-squares relu neural network (lsnn) method for scalar nonlinear hyperbolic conservation law.Appl. Numer. Math.174, 163–176 (2022)

    2022

  46. [67]

    T., Ghattas, O., Heinkenschloss, M

    Biegler, L. T., Ghattas, O., Heinkenschloss, M. & van Bloemen Waanders, B. Large-scale pde-constrained optimization: an introduction. InLarge-scale PDE-constrained optimization, 3–13 (Springer, 2003)

    2003

  47. [68]

    K., Southworth, B

    Tran, B. K., Southworth, B. S. & Leok, M. On properties of adjoint systems for evolutionary pdes.J. Nonlinear Sci.34, 95 (2024)

    2024

  48. [69]

    & Karniadakis, G

    Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P. & Karniadakis, G. E. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations.J. Comput. physics378, 686–707 (2019)

    2019

  49. [70]

    Cuomo, S.et al.Scientific machine learning through physics–informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next.J. Sci. Comput.92, 88 (2022)

    2022

  50. [71]

    A.et al.Data-driven prediction of scaling and ignition of inertial confinement fusion experiments.Phys

    Gaffney, J. A.et al.Data-driven prediction of scaling and ignition of inertial confinement fusion experiments.Phys. Plasmas31, 092702, DOI: 10.1063/5.0215962 (2024). https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0215962/ 20162047/092702_1_5.0215962.pdf. 17/18

    2024 doi

  51. [72]

    & Libby, S

    Gaffney, J., Clark, D., Sonnad, V . & Libby, S. Development of a bayesian method for the analysis of inertial confinement fusion experiments on the nif.Nucl. Fusion53, 073032, DOI: 10.1088/0029-5515/53/7/073032 (2013)

    2013 doi

  52. [73]

    Hatfield, P.et al.Using sparse gaussian processes for predicting robust inertial confinement fusion implosion yields.IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci.48, 14–21, DOI: 10.1109/TPS.2019.2944416 (2020)

    2020

  53. [74]

    & Peterson, J

    Wang, J., Chiang, N., Gillette, A. & Peterson, J. L. A multifidelity bayesian optimization method for inertial confinement fusion design.Phys. Plasmas31, 032706, DOI: 10.1063/5.0191543 (2024). https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10. 1063/5.0191543/19850210/032706_1_5....

    2024 doi

  54. [75]

    Knapp, P. F. & Lewis, W. E. Advanced data analysis in inertial confinement fusion and high energy density physics. Rev. Sci. Instruments94, 061103, DOI: 10.1063/5.0128661 (2023). https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5. 0128661/17972327/061103_1_5.0128661.pdf

    2023 doi

  55. [76]

    Gautam, S.et al.Learning robust features for scatter removal and reconstruction in dynamic icf x-ray tomography.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12766(2024)

    2024

  56. [77]

    C.et al.Experimental study of energy transfer in double shell implosions.Phys

    Merritt, E. C.et al.Experimental study of energy transfer in double shell implosions.Phys. Plasmas26, 052702, DOI: 10. 1063/1.5086674 (2019). https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5086674/15643290/052702_1_online.pdf

    2019 doi

  57. [78]

    Hertel, E. S. Jr. & Kerley, G. I. CTH Reference Manual: The Equation of State Package. report SAND98-0947, Sandia National Laboratories (1998)

    1998

  58. [79]

    Ultramicroscopy157, 35–47, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2015.05.002 (2015)

    van Aarle, W.et al.The ASTRA toolbox: A platform for advanced algorithm development in electron tomography. Ultramicroscopy157, 35–47, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2015.05.002 (2015)

    2015 doi

  59. [80]

    & Santana-Cedrés, D

    Trujillo-Pino, A., Krissian, K., Alemán-Flores, M. & Santana-Cedrés, D. Accurate subpixel edge location based on partial area effect.Image Vis. Comput.31, 72–90, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imavis.2012.10.005 (2013)

    2013 doi

  60. [81]

    Tillotson, J. H. Metallic equations of state for hypervelocity impact.Gen. At. Rep. GA-3216. 1962. Tech. Rep.3216 (1962)

    1962

  61. [82]

    The sesame database

    Johnson, J. The sesame database. Tech. Rep. LA-UR-94-1451, Los Alamos National Lab.(LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States) (1994)

    1994

  62. [83]

    In2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 16272–16282, DOI: 10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.01581 (2022)

    Whang, J.et al.Deblurring via stochastic refinement. In2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 16272–16282, DOI: 10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.01581 (2022)

    2022

  63. [84]

    & Simonyan, K

    Brock, A., Donahue, J. & Simonyan, K. Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis (2019). 1809.11096. 85.Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization (2017). 1412.6980. 86.Kingma, D. P. & Welling, M. Auto-encoding variational Bayes.C...

    2019 arXiv

  64. [87]

    P., Marins, M

    Cinelli, L. P., Marins, M. A., Da Silva, E. A. B. & Netto, S. L.Variational methods for machine learning with applications to deep networks(Springer, 2021)

    2021

  65. [88]

    P., Mohamed, S., Jimenez Rezende, D

    Kingma, D. P., Mohamed, S., Jimenez Rezende, D. & Welling, M. Semi-supervised learning with deep generative models. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.27(2014)

    2014

  66. [89]

    In Guyon, I.et al.(eds.)Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol

    Vaswani, A.et al.Attention is all you need. In Guyon, I.et al.(eds.)Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2017). Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program of Los Alamos Na...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.